Often, the easiest weapon to murder is to use a vehicle. Many policemen agree that many of these accidental deaths are actually premeditated murders. One reason for this is our lax laws regarding negligent driving.
Last week, a horrific traffic accident shook the conscience of the country. It was nothing new or unique, but it triggered an emotional response from all sections of society. A 19-year-old kid driving under the influence of alcohol, or perhaps narcotics, rammed his luxurious car into a scooter carrying three 20-year-olds. The car was speeding far beyond the safety limits and killed all three victims on the spot.
When the locals managed to capture the 19-year-old driver, the son of a prominent business family, he had the audacity to say that his father would take care of everything as their family is loaded. Perhaps this remark, more than the crash itself, gave birth to public outrage. In the media, people were horrified when they learned that the 19-year-old was sent to a correctional facility rather than a jail, despite proof that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. Many attributed it to the easy way the rich and powerful get away with murder.
The police claimed they were just following the law. The police may be right, but the problem itself is the law. If someone fires a loaded firearm into a crowd, he is considered a terrorist. But an intoxicated driver steering a machine into a crowd and running over people is merely treated as an accident.
India records over 1.6 lakh road fatalities annually. This is among the highest globally, but our legal machinery continues to classify drunk driving deaths as mere rash or negligent lapses. What it fails to consider is that someone getting behind the steering wheel in an intoxicated state is making a deliberate choice. When he kills, it is not an unfortunate mishap or simple negligence; it is murder.
Our penal laws do not treat it as such. It is one thing when a collision occurs due to an error of judgment, mechanical failure, or poor road and weather conditions. It is entirely another when someone deliberately drives while inebriated. However, Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is designed only for negligence. It carries a bailable term, and the penalties are nothing more than mere wrist slaps.
While the paper conviction rate for such offenses hovers near 50 per cent, the real conviction rate for vehicular homicide falls below 10 per cent due to compromise settlements, delayed forensic testing, and procedural lapses. We have seen superstars and celebrities get away with such deliberate killings time and again.
When we compare Indian laws to those of developed countries, our framework falls far short. The world has moved beyond negligence. In the US, the Watson murder rule applies when someone causes a fatal crash while driving intoxicated; this is recognised as a conscious disregard for human life and charged as second-degree murder. In the UK, causing death by dangerous driving can lead to life imprisonment. Mature legal systems recognise that extreme indifference to human life cannot be shielded behind claims of negligence. India, however, still views these crimes through a colonial-era lens of harmless oversight.
