The nature of murder

Legal rulings notwithstanding, the penal code needs a definite motive to book a person for committing ‘murder’. Otherwise, it’s a lesser offence attracting lenient punishment. Strangely, the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) that does not define ‘death’ yet, is meant for deciding compensation in cases of rash and negligent driving causing death. It is also bound to pay requisite relief to the dependents of drivers murdered while at the wheels.

So far that view prevails up to the highest court. It is held that murder in such cases could be incidental while the motive is stealing the vehicle. There might be any another purpose too. Why should the driver or those traveling in the insured vehicles be denied the monetary relief?

The situation is grave if seen from the insurance company’s side. The judges are divided too. They now want a finality on the core issue: Whether in a murder of a driver, the vehicle shall also come within the purview of the MVA. Section 147(b) of MVA deals with cases of any injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.

Indeed  ‘murder’ is a motivated felonious act. But it can happen by sheer accident. The differences between a ‘murder’ which is not an accident and a ‘murder’ which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder.  If the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder. But when its incidental to the real offence, like stealing the vehicle, then it’s accidental killing.