The Law Commission of India is reported to have framed a drastic set of recommendations to tackle rash and negligent driving. One of them is to increase the punishment for rash and negligent driving from two years in jail to ten years as well as making the offence non-bailable. It is indeed heartening to find the Law Commission taking serious note of this particular offence after thousands of lives have been lost in road accidents due to reckless driving often induced by alcohol. It is reasonable to infer that two such accidents taking a toll of several lives — one in Delhi and another in Mumbai — could have had something to do with the rather belated attention that the Law Commission has paid to this crime. The one in Delhi involved the grandson of Admiral Nanda (retired), who ran over six people with a BMW car at night many years ago. His crime of rash and negligent driving was compounded by one of his associates trying to obliterate much of the evidence by washing bloodstains and so on. Unfortunately for the Nanda scion, the police arrived on the scene just when the task of obliterating the evidence was in full swing. Young Nanda’s sentence was finally reduced to two years’ imprisonment after the charges were reframed from homicide to rash and negligent driving. The Mumbai tragedy involved Salman Khan, film actor, who had earlier been involved in the shooting of a black buck. He went scot-free in both cases even though his rash and negligent driving too had resulted in the deaths of a few people on the pavement.
The Law Commission’s concern about deaths caused by rash and negligent driving is praiseworthy. Any driver who has not taken his responsibilities on the roads and highways seriously and is responsible for the death of someone due to rash driving, has committed homicide, and ought to receive deterrent punishment. The present sentence of just two years in jail for taking someone’s life with a car (instead of a gun or knife) is no punishment at all, and we endorse the idea of making the punishment far more deterrent. However, making the sentence of ten years’ imprisonment non-bailable has in it the elements of overkill. And perhaps the Law Commission has overlooked two facts of life. One is that in a road accident in India the pedestrian is always deemed to be innocent and the driver of the vehicle involved always guilty, even when the victim is jay-walking. In fact, the principle involved is slightly more complex. Even if a pedestrian is not involved, the driver of the more powerful vehicle is always deemed to be guilty. If a motorcycle hits a cycle, the crowd goes for the motorcyclist; if a car hits a motorcycle, the fault must lie with the motorist; if a truck or a bus collides with a car, the driver of the heavier vehicle must be at fault. The second fact of life is that the Indian policeman has a weakness for bribes, and when he has the power to send someone to jail in a non-bailable offence, his rates are bound to go up. So, while we are all for the punishment for rash and negligent driving (especially driving under the influence of liquor) being made far more deterrent, we are not in favour of making it a non-bailable offence. There could be serious miscarriage of justice before the case even gets to the court. It is far more important for policemen in India to book petty traffic offenders like those who ignore red traffic lights or those who stop at intersections on the zebra crossings for pedestrians, or worse, those who use red lights on their cars without authority to be able to break all traffic rules with immunity. Then there are countless young drivers without driving licences driving long-distance buses in Asom and taking the lives hundreds of passengers every year. There are actually countless rash drivers who have got their licences without any driving tests who routinely add generously to the alarming number of road accidents in the State. If the traffic policemen could crack down on these offenders and insist on rigid driving tests for both professional and owner drivers, there would be fewer deaths from road accidents. We now have the deadly combination of drivers who have never faced a driving test and do not know the road rules, cars with far more power and acceleration and road surfaces that have remained the same even with the huge increase in motor vehicles. Add liquor to this combination, and you have a ready-made formula for more road accidents. THE SENTINEL
The Law Commission’s concern about deaths caused by rash and negligent driving is praiseworthy. Any driver who has not taken his responsibilities on the roads and highways seriously and is responsible for the death of someone due to rash driving, has committed homicide, and ought to receive deterrent punishment. The present sentence of just two years in jail for taking someone’s life with a car (instead of a gun or knife) is no punishment at all, and we endorse the idea of making the punishment far more deterrent. However, making the sentence of ten years’ imprisonment non-bailable has in it the elements of overkill. And perhaps the Law Commission has overlooked two facts of life. One is that in a road accident in India the pedestrian is always deemed to be innocent and the driver of the vehicle involved always guilty, even when the victim is jay-walking. In fact, the principle involved is slightly more complex. Even if a pedestrian is not involved, the driver of the more powerful vehicle is always deemed to be guilty. If a motorcycle hits a cycle, the crowd goes for the motorcyclist; if a car hits a motorcycle, the fault must lie with the motorist; if a truck or a bus collides with a car, the driver of the heavier vehicle must be at fault. The second fact of life is that the Indian policeman has a weakness for bribes, and when he has the power to send someone to jail in a non-bailable offence, his rates are bound to go up. So, while we are all for the punishment for rash and negligent driving (especially driving under the influence of liquor) being made far more deterrent, we are not in favour of making it a non-bailable offence. There could be serious miscarriage of justice before the case even gets to the court. It is far more important for policemen in India to book petty traffic offenders like those who ignore red traffic lights or those who stop at intersections on the zebra crossings for pedestrians, or worse, those who use red lights on their cars without authority to be able to break all traffic rules with immunity. Then there are countless young drivers without driving licences driving long-distance buses in Asom and taking the lives hundreds of passengers every year. There are actually countless rash drivers who have got their licences without any driving tests who routinely add generously to the alarming number of road accidents in the State. If the traffic policemen could crack down on these offenders and insist on rigid driving tests for both professional and owner drivers, there would be fewer deaths from road accidents. We now have the deadly combination of drivers who have never faced a driving test and do not know the road rules, cars with far more power and acceleration and road surfaces that have remained the same even with the huge increase in motor vehicles. Add liquor to this combination, and you have a ready-made formula for more road accidents. THE SENTINEL
No comments:
Post a Comment