It is appropriate that the legal system should not determine the penalty for a crime like drunken, reckless driving on the basis of the identity of the culprit. That many Indians react in a fashion that essentially links penalty to the identity of the culprit or the victim only serves to show that a modern, democratic conceptualisation of justice is yet to become part of the popular sensibility. In premodern systems of jurisprudence, crimes and their follow-up tend to be treated as matters to be sorted out between the victim/victim’s surviving relatives and the culprit. The state’s role is to facilitate the process.
This is not how a democracy sees crimes. Crimes are violation of society’s norms codified into the law of the land. Violations of the law are a challenge to orderly functioning of society and must be curbed by the state. The state will prosecute the criminal, regardless of the victim’s opinion in the matter. Justice is not a matter of the victim seeking revenge or professing forgiveness, but the state enforcing society’s collective norms to deny anyone impunity. In some traditional jurisprudence, if a mother is willing to accept blood money from her son’s killer and forgive him, he can walk free. But the idea that a rich man can escape the wages of crime by paying someone off is alien to the idea of justice in a democracy.
Justice entails payment of compensation. Clearly, there is miscarriage of justice in the court’s failure to disburse the compensation that Salman Khan promptly deposited with it for disbursal to the victims’ families. The elite chivvy that one of their own is being punished for non-intended harm done to those who put themselves in harm’s way. The poor victims of the crime get nil or measly compensation. Long delays mock the idea of justice. This is not the judicial system India needs
Why justice was not done to Salman Khan
Would have been better to pull up the civic body and directing the opaque institution to keep its footpaths free of sleepers and squatters.By CP Surendran -Daily o
Justice will be upheld in Salman Khan case: Gul Panag-Indian Express-08.05.2015
Gul Panag said she was "confident" that Salman Khan will further be granted bail on Friday and believes that "justice will be upheld".
As Bollywood superstar Salman Khan was given interim bail on Wednesday after being sentenced to five years in jail for the 2002 hit-and-run case, actress and social activist Gul Panag said she was “confident” that the actor will further be granted bail on Friday and believes that “justice will be upheld”.
“It’s a very difficult time for his family but we live in a country where as responsible citizens we must obey the law of the land,” Gul, who was here on Wednesday to promote a jewellery brand, told IANS.
“… his (Salman’s) team will definitely appeal in a higher court and I’m confident that justice will be upheld,” the 36-year-old added.
Salman was granted two days interim bail on medical grounds by the Bombay High Court after his defence team led by Supreme Court counsel Harish Salve mentioned the matter before Justice A.M. Thipsay.
Salve cited medical reasons for seeking bail and also argued that a person could not be arrested on the basis of a summarised court order.
The hearing on the bail application will now be taken up on Friday morning.
My views On Salman Jail case
Today 08.05.2015 at noon High Court Granted Bail to Salman-Times of India
The Bombay high court on Friday suspended the five-year jail term of actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case, triggering wild celebrations among his fans across the country.
The single bench of justice Abhay Thipsay, however, asked the 49-year-old actor to surrender his passport and seek fresh bail from the sessions court which had convicted and sentenced him on Wednesday. He was released for a surety of Rs 25,000.
“We can fix a date in June or July whether he is guilty or not,” the judge said while suspending the sentencing pending a fresh appeal. Khan was not present in court.
The star of some of Bollywood’s most commercially successful films is accused of running his SUV over five people sleeping on a Mumbai pavement, killing one of them.
Khan will have to approach the sessions court during the day as his two-day interim bail period ends today.
“We cannot take pleasure in the fact that someone is in custody. There is no law that says if there is alcohol (in blood) it is culpable homicide,” the justice said, adding, “This is not a case where the accused needs to be kept in detention.
“Even on the basis that there is sufficient evidence saying the accused was driving, several other conditions have to be taken into consideration.”
The hearing took a dramatic turn earlier when the Bollywood superstar’s lawyer asked why singer Kamaal Khan, who was in Salman’s car on the fateful night, had not been examined by the police.
Arguing for Khan, senior lawyer Amit Desai told the bench that the sessions judge who handed down the sentence to Khan had ignored crucial facts and there were no eye witnesses in the case. He said there was a dispute if there were three to four persons present in the car when the accident took place.
Thipsay sought the deposition of Ravindra Patil, a Mumbai Police constable who was the then bodyguard of Khan. Patil was the first to inform police about the accident, and it was on his statement that an FIR was registered at Bandra police station.
Desai told the court that one of the prosecution witnesses, a person who owned a shop next to the spot of the accident, had stated that he saw Salman coming out of the car.
"The witness also says that two (more) persons were also there (apart from Salman) and the police constable, but when he was cross-examined he says: 'I do not know where the two went'," Desai told the court.
Justice Thipsay said, "I want to know how many witnesses deposed before the sessions court and the magistrate court. I want to know whether the witnesses have had after thoughts."
Salman Khan's hit-and-run case: What is culpable homicide?-TOI 07.05.15
Actor Salman Khan has been convicted for culpable homicide on Wednesday in 2002 hit-and-run case.
The word 'homicide' came from the Latin terms, meaning killing of a human being by a human being is homicide.
Culpable Homicide is defined by section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the section 299 of IPC whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
The essential elements of the offence of culpable homicide are as follows -
i) that death of a human being was caused ;
ii) by an act with the intention of causing death ; or
iii) by an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death ; or
iv) by an act with the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death . Without one or other of these elements an act , though it may be in it's nature criminal and may occasion death , will not amount to the offence of culpable homicide .
Section 299 defined Culpable Homicide in simple way. Culpable homicide are of two kinds:
I. Culpable homicide amounting to murder.
II. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Culpable homicide is the Genus, and murder is the Species.
All murder are culpable homicide but not vice-versa. Section 299 cannot be taken to be definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Culpable homicide is the genus, section 300 defines murder which means murder is the species of culpable homicide.
It is to be noted here that culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not defined separately in IPC, it is defined as part of Murder in the section 300 of IPC.
Section 300 - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
Culpable Homicide is not amounting to murder: Exception 1 to 5 of s300 of IPC defines conditions when culpable Homicide is not amounting to murder:
II. Right of private defense.
III. Public servant exceeding his power.
IV. Sudden fight.
1-culpable homicide is not amounting to murder if the offender, whilst deprive of self control by grave and sudden provocation, caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisions:- The provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
2.The provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
3. The provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.