THERE is a heated debate going on over whether or not to treat deaths caused by speedy and rash driving as murder. Legally speaking, culpable homicide, that is punishable killing of man is murder, if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or, if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
It might be of interest to the general readers to know that while all murders must necessarily be culpable homicide, but not vice versa. Before an accused can be convicted for murder it would be the duty of the prosecution to prove such intention or knowledge as has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. As long as the prosecution does not prove such intention or knowledge the accused is entitled to an acquittal. It there is a possibility of an accidental death in doubtful circumstances, the appellant offender gets the benefit of doubt.
Under our penal law culpable homicide, that is punishable killing of man, does not automatically amount to murder. In order for the offence to be treated as murder, the case must come within the provisions of the preceding paragraphs. In other words, homicide may be culpable and culpable homicide may or may not amount to murder. Therefore, murder is a special offence of a higher plane and the point to note is the high degree of criminality. Similarly, the burden of proof is much greater in murder.
The point to drive home is that the quarters that, in their justified rage at the pathetic deaths on roads caused by rash driving, are pleading for all such incidents to be treated as murder, may not be legally able to punish the offender. The charge of extreme recklessness causing death, by itself, would not render an act as murder. It must in addition be wholly inexcusable. Where a risk is incurred—even a risk of the gravest possible character which must normally result in death—the taking of that risk will not be murder unless it was inexcusable to take it.
There is a considered view that the offenders causing deaths by rash, negligent and exceedingly speedy driving on the roads may better be charged under section 304A of the Penal Code that 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 five years, or with fine, or with both.”
It needs to be noted that our Penal Code punishes three classes of homicide—murder, culpable homicide and homicide by negligence. The degree of criminality in each case depends primarily upon the mentality of the accused, and not upon the nature and effect of the act; death is caused in each case but the nature of criminality in each case differs.
Legal action under Section 304 A against the speeding offenders will be in proper order as criminal rashness would mean hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence would constitute the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
Since the degree of criminality in each case depends primarily upon the mentality of the accused, and in deciding culpability the amount of care and circumspection to be exercised by a prudent and reasonable man is a determining factor, it might be proper to emphasise on the proactive actions to stall rash and negligent driving instead of disproportionately relying on reactive penal measures.
The truck and bus drivers could be put through an intensive motivational course on the adverse effects of rash and negligent driving. Simultaneously, institutional capacity needs to be augmented to provide adequate skills to potential drivers. The regulatory functions of Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA) that includes licensing and providing mechanical fitness certificates need to be attended to with due diligence and integrity.
It might be of interest to the general readers to know that while all murders must necessarily be culpable homicide, but not vice versa. Before an accused can be convicted for murder it would be the duty of the prosecution to prove such intention or knowledge as has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. As long as the prosecution does not prove such intention or knowledge the accused is entitled to an acquittal. It there is a possibility of an accidental death in doubtful circumstances, the appellant offender gets the benefit of doubt.
Under our penal law culpable homicide, that is punishable killing of man, does not automatically amount to murder. In order for the offence to be treated as murder, the case must come within the provisions of the preceding paragraphs. In other words, homicide may be culpable and culpable homicide may or may not amount to murder. Therefore, murder is a special offence of a higher plane and the point to note is the high degree of criminality. Similarly, the burden of proof is much greater in murder.
The point to drive home is that the quarters that, in their justified rage at the pathetic deaths on roads caused by rash driving, are pleading for all such incidents to be treated as murder, may not be legally able to punish the offender. The charge of extreme recklessness causing death, by itself, would not render an act as murder. It must in addition be wholly inexcusable. Where a risk is incurred—even a risk of the gravest possible character which must normally result in death—the taking of that risk will not be murder unless it was inexcusable to take it.
There is a considered view that the offenders causing deaths by rash, negligent and exceedingly speedy driving on the roads may better be charged under section 304A of the Penal Code that 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 five years, or with fine, or with both.”
It needs to be noted that our Penal Code punishes three classes of homicide—murder, culpable homicide and homicide by negligence. The degree of criminality in each case depends primarily upon the mentality of the accused, and not upon the nature and effect of the act; death is caused in each case but the nature of criminality in each case differs.
Legal action under Section 304 A against the speeding offenders will be in proper order as criminal rashness would mean hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence would constitute the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
Since the degree of criminality in each case depends primarily upon the mentality of the accused, and in deciding culpability the amount of care and circumspection to be exercised by a prudent and reasonable man is a determining factor, it might be proper to emphasise on the proactive actions to stall rash and negligent driving instead of disproportionately relying on reactive penal measures.
The truck and bus drivers could be put through an intensive motivational course on the adverse effects of rash and negligent driving. Simultaneously, institutional capacity needs to be augmented to provide adequate skills to potential drivers. The regulatory functions of Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA) that includes licensing and providing mechanical fitness certificates need to be attended to with due diligence and integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment