Law is not an insensible collection of rules, but is an alive product of a living and raw society. Hence there is a very close connection between law and morality. The law exists to encourage morality, to safeguard those conditions which make the moral life possible, and thus to facilitate men to lead sober lives. The average man regards law as justice systemised and justice itself as a mass of ethical principle. The positive law can be perceived as a code of rules matching with the code of moral laws. Thus when someone takes the life of another regardless of intent or other minutiae surrounding the details, it is a crime and deserves harsh punishment.
The Community against Drunken Driving (CADD) said nearly 70 percent of all fatalities are due to drunken driving. Despite prosecution of drunken driving have increased by about seven times in Delhi and sixteen times in Mumbai since 2001, there has been no corresponding decrease in accidents and fatalities.[1] Statistics from 2011 showed that 70 percent of 1.34 lakh road accidents fatalities in India were due to drunken driving.[2] The Indian state may make many laws to prevent such crime, however none of this means much unless there are speedy trials and moreover the fear of punishment in people's mind if they do not act within the parameters of the law. Fairness and speed are equally important in the administration of justice. However, judicial delays in India are endemic which needs to change.
It took 13 years for the verdict of FIR No. 326 which was registered at Bandra Police Station, after the solemn September dawn that saw one pavement dweller killed and four others maimed by the speeding car of the accused, actor Salman Khan, who under the influence of Alcohol crushed them in their sleep. After series of trials that witnessed melodrama, numerous changes of venues, and demise of witnesses, arguments finally concluded in April 2015. The actor has been found guilty of the charges framed under Sections 304(Part II), 279,337,338, and 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 134,187,181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.[3] Indeed, for India, this verdict inspires optimism. It is an astounding success for the common man, challenging the meaning of justice in India as a service for sale to the highest bidder. Even if the sentence is shortened in the higher courts or whatever the outcome, the verdict is an obvious message to the elite class of India that they are not above the law.
In 2010, 27 year old Nooriya Yusuf Haweliwala a beautician who lived in Colaba rammed her car into a motorbike driver and a policeman at a checkpoint, killing both. [4] She was driving under influence. Booked for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and rash and negligent driving. She finally got a sentence of five years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5 lacs in 2012. Of the five years jail term, she spent four months in jail after which she was released on bail. [5] Isn't it the need of the hour to re-examine laws and bring necessary changes to have a deterrent effect to prevent crime in the general population. A states punishment for offenders must serve as an example for others who have not yet participated in criminal events. The death of an innocent person in a drunken driving case should not only be construed as an act of negligence but also as culpable homicide not amounting to murder with an imprisonment of not less than 14 years. This deterrence is the only way to make people aware of the horrors of official sanctions thus putting them off committing crimes.
Only when we thought that people learn from others mistakes, yet another profoundly tragic and disturbing incident occurred on June 8th 2015, where a corporate lawyer Janhavi Gadkar allegedly killed two innocent victims in a taxi while she was driving her Audi drunkenly down the wrong side of a Mumbai highway. Indeed, the death of the sober who have done nothing wrong is tragic in every drink driving case and hence if the events in the Gadkar case happened as they have been alleged, there undoubtedly appears to be lawful and ethical responsibility of the law to take its appropriate path. The defense lawyers are trying their best to bring her case within the preview of negligent driving and not culpable homicide. If that happens it would be a shame.
Assuming justice always takes its appropriate path, should it rest after rightly convicting the delinquents? Can this be the one and only measurement to claim success in running a country efficiently? Shouldn't prevention of crime be the priority rather than punishment ofcrime. Moreover, the real problem will remain unsolved and more lives will continue to be tragically lost unless our laws and their implementation are stringent, efficient, effective and above all extremely prompt (justice delayed is justice denied). Our laws need to instil the deterrent effect amongst the offenders and society in general.
Further In a country notoriously slow to execute change, an overnight transformation is not even an option but, it is not impossible to discourage and prevent crime by establishing appropriate systems, procedures, protocols and reducing or eliminating such possibilities which could lead to an offence. The mismatch between existence of good laws and their actual implementation is self explanatory on state capacity in India and it is high time to bring revolution.
[1] http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/70-per-cent-of-road-accidents-in-india-due-to-drunken-driving/article2648900.ece.
[3] http://www.firstpost.com/living/why-did-salman-khans-trial-take-so-long-because-thats-how-law-works-in-india-2232020.html
[4] Mumbai, Sun Jan 31 2010, 09:12 hrs
[5] by Rajyasree Sen Jun 13, 2015 08:23 IST
No comments:
Post a Comment