CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the investigating agencies (IAs) and the Judicial Magistrates (JMs) in the State to register a case under Section 304(ii) of the IPC, if it is found that the accused persons against whom a complaint is given in pursuant to an accident resulting in death, is driving in a drunken state. Section 304(ii) will get attracted when it is proved that even if the accused had no intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, but had the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death. It provided for 10 years’ RI with fine.Justice MM Sundresh, who gave the direction on February 22, also directed the JMs to look into the acts and circumstances of each case and then decide appropriate punishment for drunken driving without mechanically imposing the fine alone. ‘’While imposing the punishment, they must keep in mind the object and the fundamental principle underlying the criminal jurisprudence, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court,’’ the judge said. The judge further observed that while dealing with such a case, the courts should understand that a punishment imposed would have to be a detriment not only to the accused but also to others who were likely to commit such an offence. That was the reason why a crime was considered to be one against society even though it was actually committed against an individual. ‘’The only way to reduce accident due to drunken driving is to stop such driving. People must be made known to drive with care as life has no spare. The uncalled-for enthusiasm and exuberance of a young driver requires adequate control. By mechanically imposing the fine, the very purpose and object of the enactment would be lost,’’ the judge added.The judge, however, granted bail to a drunken car driver involved in a mishap killing a person on January 26 this year. And for the first time, the police registered a case under Sec 304(ii), a cognisable and non-bailable offence. The judge granted the relief, as the accused was in judicial custody from January 30 and his custodial interrogation was over.
Comments
0 comment