Hushed Finger Prints Evidence:
Finger prints evidence has also been suppressed by the prosecution. The prosecution did send the fingerprints for analysis, however it has not been presented during trial, which raises serious doubts that the steering wheel etc. had prints of driver, rather than that of Salman Khan. However, once again the trial court terms this argument as useless, since it presumes that there is direct evidence to conclude accused was driving vehicle. Giving a clear hint that the trial court was only concerned with holding the accused guilty, and it is willing to ignore everything else which points otherwise. That is not our law of the land, not by a long shot.
Finger prints evidence has also been suppressed by the prosecution. The prosecution did send the fingerprints for analysis, however it has not been presented during trial, which raises serious doubts that the steering wheel etc. had prints of driver, rather than that of Salman Khan. However, once again the trial court terms this argument as useless, since it presumes that there is direct evidence to conclude accused was driving vehicle. Giving a clear hint that the trial court was only concerned with holding the accused guilty, and it is willing to ignore everything else which points otherwise. That is not our law of the land, not by a long shot.
Mens
rea trifled
with:
‘Knowledge’ has been reduced to tort- like understanding of negligence. It should be understood first that the actus reus remains the same and hence won’t be discussed much. What’s contentious is, mens rea. Mens rea, in this case if found to be that of the degree of negligence (rash or negligent), would have incurred a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, however if the degree is raised to knowledge, the nature of crime changes to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable for a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. In recent years, even the Supreme Court has been fouling the concept of mens rea in these cases.
‘Knowledge’ has been reduced to tort- like understanding of negligence. It should be understood first that the actus reus remains the same and hence won’t be discussed much. What’s contentious is, mens rea. Mens rea, in this case if found to be that of the degree of negligence (rash or negligent), would have incurred a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, however if the degree is raised to knowledge, the nature of crime changes to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable for a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. In recent years, even the Supreme Court has been fouling the concept of mens rea in these cases.
Coming to the case at
hand, I would say that there can not co-exist two different mens rea for the same actus
reus, which has been held in this particular case. The court is happy to attach
mens rea of the degree- ‘rash or
negligent’ (same genre of Section 304A IPC) while convicting the accused u/s
337 & 338 IPC. However, the trial court charges the accused with another
sort of mens rea (higher degree)- ‘knowledge’ while convicting him under second part
of Section 304 IPC. Well, it is a matter of great academic research that a
person while committing one act (of unintentional accident) has two different
degrees of mens rea. It is pertinent
to mention that nowhere has the trial court found that the charging act of the
accused was wilful, hence it takes the accused out of the realm of having
knowledge of the specific consequences.
A criminal law concept
of knowledge is different from tort law or common knowledge. But according to
trial court, all of us have the criminal knowledge that a car driven
negligently may cause accident, which may also result in death is some cases.
Hence all that is required is an accident which is not force majeure, for one
to be convicted of the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Sorry to say,
but that is not a sound understanding of mens
rea. The Courts can’t be allowed to use criminal state of mind like knowledge
as a synonym to fill in the fancy blanks of catchy sentences, which in itself
are the creation of a conviction- friendly Prosecution, or for that matter,
trial court.
Analogy being that
every person driving on road (for convenience, say daytime) is guilty of having
knowledge that driving rashly or negligently may endanger life of persons
present on any average road, and if an accident happens, the accused is guilty
of Section 304(II) IPC and in that manner no offence of 304A IPC is made out.
It leaves me wondering if there remains any act, which would fall u/s 304A IPC
by that logic.
Part VII - Post-Script and Conclusion
Part VII - Post-Script and Conclusion
Judgment Link: http://court.mah.nic.in/courtweb/orders/citycriminal/orders/201501002402013_14.pdf
Note: The trial court order was set aside by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court & the appellant/ accused Salman Salim Khan was acquitted of all charges vide judgement dated 10.10.2015. The State of Maharashtra has preferred to appeal against the acquittal, which is pending as of February, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment