#dnaEdit: The rule of law

It has taken over 12 years for Bollywood superstar, Salman Khan, to be held accountable for a straightforward hit-and-run case. The Mumbai police bungled the case on multiple occasions, which is a testimony to how the influential can delay or even subvert the criminal justice delivery system. Sadly, the accident had another victim, besides Nurulla Sharif, who was crushed under Khan’s vehicle. That victim was the main prosecution witness — police constable Ravindra Patil— also Khan’s bodyguard. Patil in sworn statements claimed Khan drove the vehicle at an unsafe speed, despite his warnings to slow down. But Patil paid a heavy price for speaking up.

Hounded by his department and mentally shattered, he passed away in 2007 after contracting tuberculosis. Given the anatomy of the case, Khan can be thankful for getting merely five years in jail as against the maximum possible sentence of 10 years imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Indian Penal Code Section 304-II).

Khan has only himself to blame. If he had chosen to do the honourable thing — take the victims to hospital, express contrition, and not put forward his driver Ashok Singh as the fall guy — a case for redemption could perhaps have been made. Only these, and not his claims of doing phenomenal charity work, could have been considered as mitigating circumstances. Khan could then have escaped the stringent IPC 304-II and pleaded for being charged under the lighter IPC Section 304A (causing death by rash or negligent act). The latter is punishable with just two years imprisonment. In fact, most road accident death cases are registered under IPC 304A or IPC Section 279 (rash and negligent driving punishable with six months imprisonment). Traditionally, the state has taken a rather benign view on road accidents. But cases like Khan’s, the 1999 BMW hit-and-run case and the 2006 Alistair Pereira case have triggered public outrage and forced the invocation of IPC 304-II. Pereira had mowed down seven labourers but was awarded a shockingly lenient punishment of just three years despite being charged under IPC 304-II. While hearing Pereira’s appeal, the Supreme Court termed the sentence “meagre and inadequate”, but did nothing as the Maharashtra government had not appealed for increasing the quantum of punishment. This epitomises the official attitude towards road safety and accident victims, especially if they are poor.

The National Crime Records Bureau data reveals there were 1.37 lakh road accident fatalities and 3.8 lakh court cases pending under IPC 304-A in 2013 . Because there are no reliable statistics on the prosecution of road accident cases, we can only assume that a significant chunk of the 3.8 lakh cases were road accident deaths. While 14,147 of these cases ended in conviction, 42,524 cases were acquitted in 2013, revealing a low conviction rate. The 234th report of the Law Commission (2009) and the Supreme Court mooted stiffer punishments for road accident cases to serve as an effective deterrent. Recently, the transport ministry published a draft Road Transport and Safety Bill that imposed stiff fines up to Rs3 lakh and imprisonment up to seven years for rash driving. However, this was quickly watered down because of fears that it would fan corruption. The reality of India is that our roads are designed in a manner that facilitate chaotic driving and, consequently, accidents. Our traffic police personnel on two-wheelers are ill-equipped to rein in speeding motorists. We have also made scant use of technology like high-speed cameras and speed governors. To top it all, a VIP culture, allowing the rich to believe they are above the law, has taken root. Consider, for instance, that despite the Supreme Court directing actor Sanjay Dutt to serve a five-year jail sentence, he has repeatedly stayed out of jail, on parole. One should not then be surprised if, despite conviction, Khan secures bail and resumes normal life while his appeals do the rounds of higher courts.