Is IPC section 304-A, a License to Kill?
Mangalore, Aug 25 : Charles Dickens Novel “Oliver Twist” is an unromantic portrayal of criminals and their sordid lives and in this novel he says that famous quotable quote “law is an ass, an idiot”. The quote has much relevance to Indian Penal Code Section 304-A which was inserted in the Code in 1870 by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870. This section of IPC deals with causing death by negligence, an archaic act that should have been amended long back. But alas! It looks as though we have a knack of preserving or sticking on to archaic laws.
The teenager who mowed two youngsters and injured 3 more people in Panambur by recklessly driving his SUV in an early morning mayhem on 21st August has been released on bail and as expected, a case has been booked against his mother who is the RC owner of the vehicle. Commissioner of Police Seemanth Kumar Singh has said that the teenager has been charged under section 279 (rash driving or riding in public way) and his mother is charged under Section 304-A of IPC (causing death and negligence). However, it is said that the mother cannot be held liable under Section 304-A.
Section 304 says “whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”. So the maximum punishment to the accused (in this case the mother even if she is charged under section 304-A) will be two years of imprisonment or fine (which is again nominal) and the accused can get away. The teenager being 16 year old and minor will be treated as a juvenile, which means the court is bound to release him on bail and that is what exactly happened to the teenager involved in this case.
When contacted Panambur Police Inspector Valentin D Souza, who is investigating the case, said that warrant will be issued to the R C owner, in this case to his mother Ashalatha and court proceedings will go on. The court will send the summons to the accused as per procedure.
Now, as the punishment is in the form of fine or sentence of two years or both, having regard to many circumstances the driver may admit the offence and may pay even heavy fine and get away as is happening blatantly in our country for decades. This is another instance of law coming to the rescue of the offenders with the victims and their families leaving to fend for themselves with no compensation coming. The insurance company is not liable to pay in this case as the accused did not have a driving license and the only course left to the victims and their families is to proceed against the R C owner Ashalatha who is in Muscat along with her husband.
Considering the law what it is, it looks as though the families of victims will have a tough time in getting any sort of compensation even from the R C owner because the case will be taken under civil proceedings and it will be years before the court comes up with any judgment. “There will be adjournments and the case will take different turns over a period of years and confiscating the property to compensate the victims will be difficult” says eminent High Court advocate P P Hegde.
Lawyers say that with the civil proceedings dragging for years the accused my be successful in transferring the assets to someone else’s name or may even sell it off. If the insurance company was involved, recovering the property would have been easier. But now the families of victims will have to challenge it in the court of law. Presently the law is not in favor of the victims but is supportive of the accused. P P Hegde says “it was amended in 1870 in order to support the British nationals who were known offenders and it was done to help them get away after committing such heinous crimes. Unfortunately we are still stuck up with the same age old law which should be scrapped. It helps the offenders to escape in the name of law”.
Charging youngsters below 18 years of age under juvenile delinquency is another major drawback of 304 A of IPC which gives the escape route to offenders. It is the same drawback which is being used by anti-national elements to get away from the jaws of law. It has slowly come to light now that criminals in Kerala had used juveniles to commit the barbaric act of chopping the hand of Prof T J Joseph a few months back. It is also know that the same tactics are used by terrorists in Kashmir and unless the law is amended there seems to be no escape from the present quandary we find ourselves in. With terrorists, anti-social elements and youngsters taking advantage of the loopholes in the law there is an urgent need to redefine the meaning of juvenile delinquency by confining it to less than 14 years. Juvenile justice act is merely reformative and not deterrent and the society has to take up the cudgels on behalf of the victims by redefining “juvenile crime”.
P P Hegde says it is imperative to amend section 304 – A of IPC to punish the guilty by making it non-bailable, punishment must be severe, each death needs to be taken separately rather than as a single entity, minors should not be excused and parents/R C owners must be made vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the victims. If the offence is made punishable 10 years it naturally becomes non-bailable. At present the punishment is same even if someone kills a single person or in hundreds or thousands. Unfortunately it is Section 304-A of IPC that was applied in Bhopal gas tragedy which helped the victims go scot free. If the minors are allowed to get away under the Juvenile Justice Act, many others will get encouraged to commit similar or worst mistakes because they know they can easily get away.
Advocates and lawyers also are of the view that section 304-A should be made non-bailable or the accused should be released on bail only after they deposit the compensation to be given to the victims. In Arab countries they insist that the offenders pay blood money and if they don’t pay they will be inside the bars till they pay the money. This amendment should have been done in India decades back but our elected representatives are too pre-occupied in disrupting parliamentary proceedings on silly pretexts rather than work to amend outdated laws.
There are many teenagers and even those below 12 years who drive non-gear as well as geared two wheelers and also four wheelers and endanger the lives of others, as was done by this teenager. Many parents beam with pride when they see their under aged children driving (without license) and some of them even ride with them as pillion riders. Shirish Kumar, Hosabettu in his comments to the report of this teenager killing two people in daijiworldcom says parents should be held responsible and they can’t feign ignorance of their children’s activities. He also mentions about a 12 year old boy driving and 14 years old girl (daughter of a driving school owner) teaching driving to others in Manipal and so far the authorities have failed in initiating action against them.
In Mangalore too, there are many teenagers who drive the vehicles having their parents as R C Owners. In such cases it is the ignorance of the parents and their filial love that is likely to put them in trouble. There are instances of people losing their property or having paid huge compensation in the absence of not having proper insurance or driving without license. It is because of this loophole in law P P Hegde says he will not give any advice to parents or students who venture out with their vehicles without license as the law favours the offenders rather than the victims. The RTO office in Mangalore is aware of instances of teenagers driving without license. RTO Seva Naik says offenders, if caught will be fined. But for most spoilt brats money is not a problem and they end up paying fine only to repeat the mistake again. However, he adds “youngsters caught second time or subsequently driving without license will be fined and even charge sheeted”.
Seva Naik says “in case under-aged people drive and end up causing damage or killing people then the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay whatever compensation the victims demand”. However, he fails to say the court proceedings will drag on for years and by then it will be a wonder if at all the victims or their families are able to survive. It is but strange that Charles Dicken’s quotable quote still holds good in our country.
Amendment to Section 304-A is something that needs urgent attention of our elected representatives. If threatening a person under Section 506 of IPC is a non-bailable offence one fails to understand how someone charged under section 304-A can get away with a license to kill. In the meantime, it is in the fitness of things the legal fraternity is united in rendering a helping hand to the victims of the Panambur tragedy to ensure that the victims get adequate compensation for the blunder committed by a spoilt rich brat.