Crime – Hit and Run; Justice – Hit and Miss

Quite funny how justice is meted out in courts. I’m talking about hit-and-run cases involving cinema artistes.

Here’s a queer coincidence involving two hit-and-run cases.

When:

1. December 7, 1997. 

2. September 28, 2002.

Where:

1. Bandra,  Mumbai

2.Bandra, Mumbai

Who:

1. Puru Raaj Kumar, Bollywood actor

2. Salman Khan, Bollywood actor

What vehicle:

1.Imported car

2.Imported car.

How:

1.Drunk driving, vehicle ploughs down sleeping people road-side

2.Drunk driving, vehicle ploughs down sleeping people road-side

Deaths:

1.Three dead, one maimed, 2 injured

2.One dead, 4 injured

Compensation paid:

1.Rs. 1 lakh to victims

2.Rs.19 lakh to victims

Result:
1.No conviction, accused let off

2.Conviction, 5-year jail term.

The judicial system has come a long way since Puru Raaj Kumar escaped conviction despite the deaths of three persons because of his drunken driving. That perhaps sealed the fate of Salman Khan. Even though it took a whopping 12 years for the legal system to reach the end of the tunnel.

In the first case, Puru was charged under section 304-I of the IPC, for causing death due to rash driving which has a maximum punishment of two years. It is a bailable section. Puru got bail. Eventually, he was not even convicted and let off after paying a paltry fine.

In the second case too, Salman was initially charged under section 304-i. He too got bail. But the Mumbai police later invoked section-ii. Salman challenged it all the way up to the Supreme Court, but in vain. So, he is in jail today.

What is this section 304-ii of the IPC?

It says: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Why was this section not used in the Puru case? Till then, strangely, it was routine practice is to book the accused for rash and negligent driving— a bailable offence punishable by a maximum of two years. The serious charge of culpable homicide was never applied on the ground perhaps that this charge is difficult to prove.

Why was this section applied in Salman’s case. Salman is no Puru. Mighty star of Bollywood. High-profile case. High-profile coverage. High-profile attention. Finally, the supreme court had to intervene. Even then, it took nearly four years before the Mumbai magistrate framed charges under 304-ii against Salman in October, 2006. Also, there was another case where section-ii was being debated. It was a Mumbai case too.

Now we come to the third hit-and-run case of Mumbai involving Alistair Periera. Like Puru and Salman before him, a drunk Alistair ploughed his imported vehicle (coincidence) over a group of sleeping people (coincidence) somewhere in Bandra (coincidence) on November 12, 2006. Seven persons died.

If you thought the police by then smarting from the Puru and Salman episodes would have charged him under section 304-ii, guest again. He was granted bail! Not only that, he was convicted under section 304(a) – causing death by rash and negligent act – and awarded six-months in jail and fine of Rs. 5 lakh. Pereira challenged the conviction in the high court which actually enhanced the charge to section 304-ii and also the punishment to three years. It was not before the Supreme Court upheld it that Periera finally gave up challenging.

In the Puru case, there was not even talk about section 304-ii.

In the Periera case, it took five months – between April and September, 2007 – for the high court to enhance the charge to section 304-ii.

In the Salman case, it took nearly nine years  -- October, 2002 to December, 2013 – for the court to uphold the charge under section 304-ii against him.

Why so much delay?

I don’t see any reason for such delay. Ask the system.