Alistair Pereira could have got more than a three-year sentence had the Maharashtra government appealed against the HC verdict.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday set the trend for stringent punishment to those causing road deaths due to drunk driving by holding that the Bombay high court was right in sending Alistair Anthony Pereira
to jail for three years. But it said this too was lenient punishment
for his offence of driving in a drunken state and mowing to death seven
persons sleeping on a Mumbai pavement in 2006.
This judgment by Justices R M Lodha and J S Khehar, which dismissed Pereira's appeal, is a landmark of sorts as till now, the apex court had dealt with drunk driving cases resulting in conviction and sentence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code and not under Section 304-II, which has a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Lodha said, "The facts and circumstances of the case, which have been proved by the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the accused under Section 304-II, undoubtedly show despicable aggravated offence warranting punishment proportionate to the crime."
Pereira could have got more than a three-year sentence had the Maharashtra government appealed against the HC verdict. The bench said, "Seven precious human lives were lost by the act of the accused. For an offence like this, which has been proved against the appellant, sentence of three years awarded by the HC is too meagre and not adequate but since no appeal has been preferred by the state, we refrain from considering the matter for enhancement."
Revisit sentencing policy
The Supreme Court said that an inebriated Alistair Anthony Pereira, who mowed to death seven persons sleeping on a Mumbai pavement in 2006, may have paid Rs 8.5 lakh compensation to the victims' kin but no amount of compensation could relieve the families from constant agony.
"As a matter of fact, the HC had been quite lenient in awarding to the appellant sentence of three years for an offence under Section 304-II where seven persons were killed," the court said.
The bench, in its 69-page judgment, said, "Our country has the dubious distinction of registering maximum number of deaths in road accidents. It is high time that lawmakers revisit the sentencing policy reflected in Section 304A of the IPC."
This judgment may have a bearing on cases such as the BMW hit-and-run case, where an appeal is pending in the apex court, and a similar case in which trial is pending against Bollywood superstar Salman Khan.
Pereira had run over 15 people, mostly migrant construction workers, sleeping on the pavement of Carter Road in Bandra in the early hours on November 12, 2006, killing seven.
The SC's stamp of approval on Pereira's conviction under Section 304-II means that the judiciary has decided to abandon giving the benefit of doubt to those driving in a drunken state and causing death and convicting them under Section 304A.
This section provides for a maximum jail term of two years or fine or both for death caused by rash and negligent driving. In contrast, Section 304-II attributes knowledge to the person that if he drove a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, he could cause death or inflict injuries on passersby that could cause their death. This section provides 10-year jail term to those found guilty.
Pereira's counsel, advocate UU Lalit, had argued that the HC erred in convicting his client under Section 304-II because if he was under the influence of alcohol, he would not have been aware of the consequences of his action.
But state government counsel Sanjay Kharde said everyone who drives after consuming alcohol beyond the permitted limit knows that he could lose control and cause death.
Our country has the dubious distinction of registering maximum number of road deaths. It is high time lawmakers revisit the sentencing policy.
This judgment by Justices R M Lodha and J S Khehar, which dismissed Pereira's appeal, is a landmark of sorts as till now, the apex court had dealt with drunk driving cases resulting in conviction and sentence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code and not under Section 304-II, which has a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Lodha said, "The facts and circumstances of the case, which have been proved by the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the accused under Section 304-II, undoubtedly show despicable aggravated offence warranting punishment proportionate to the crime."
Pereira could have got more than a three-year sentence had the Maharashtra government appealed against the HC verdict. The bench said, "Seven precious human lives were lost by the act of the accused. For an offence like this, which has been proved against the appellant, sentence of three years awarded by the HC is too meagre and not adequate but since no appeal has been preferred by the state, we refrain from considering the matter for enhancement."
Revisit sentencing policy
The Supreme Court said that an inebriated Alistair Anthony Pereira, who mowed to death seven persons sleeping on a Mumbai pavement in 2006, may have paid Rs 8.5 lakh compensation to the victims' kin but no amount of compensation could relieve the families from constant agony.
"As a matter of fact, the HC had been quite lenient in awarding to the appellant sentence of three years for an offence under Section 304-II where seven persons were killed," the court said.
The bench, in its 69-page judgment, said, "Our country has the dubious distinction of registering maximum number of deaths in road accidents. It is high time that lawmakers revisit the sentencing policy reflected in Section 304A of the IPC."
This judgment may have a bearing on cases such as the BMW hit-and-run case, where an appeal is pending in the apex court, and a similar case in which trial is pending against Bollywood superstar Salman Khan.
Pereira had run over 15 people, mostly migrant construction workers, sleeping on the pavement of Carter Road in Bandra in the early hours on November 12, 2006, killing seven.
The SC's stamp of approval on Pereira's conviction under Section 304-II means that the judiciary has decided to abandon giving the benefit of doubt to those driving in a drunken state and causing death and convicting them under Section 304A.
This section provides for a maximum jail term of two years or fine or both for death caused by rash and negligent driving. In contrast, Section 304-II attributes knowledge to the person that if he drove a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, he could cause death or inflict injuries on passersby that could cause their death. This section provides 10-year jail term to those found guilty.
Pereira's counsel, advocate UU Lalit, had argued that the HC erred in convicting his client under Section 304-II because if he was under the influence of alcohol, he would not have been aware of the consequences of his action.
But state government counsel Sanjay Kharde said everyone who drives after consuming alcohol beyond the permitted limit knows that he could lose control and cause death.
Our country has the dubious distinction of registering maximum number of road deaths. It is high time lawmakers revisit the sentencing policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment