[carwatcher]

Now next step is applying for Bail on following grounds:

a) Mother (or both parents) are ill : 90% of people of this age group have parents and 90% of them will fall sick hearing the news of their kids going to jail.
b) Charity work : Was it started bearing in mind that this day (of judgment) will come someday. Anyway Being Human clothes are damn expensive.
c) Film shooting will suffer : So is this really can be argued. Infact he should be thankful of getting so hit movies during his bail period. But this fact can be well argued by his fellow actors and heroines which are yet to be launched and under charity clause too.
d) He has already deposited compensation : And has made enough money to recover that by many times more.

As per me the only condition which has strong chances of getting him bail are pleads from his close relatives who are left out from being named as a producer of his films.

These high-profile case ALWAYS make me repent for not choosing law as a profession.

PS : I just want to know the opinion of fellow BHPians if any victim is related to them and how will one feel witnessing the whole mockery of law.

I would also want the reaction of people who have been defending for last 13 years that he was not driving, what they have to say now ? Don't you think its enough.

If someone wants to witness a case where a high profile person is killed in the same circumstances, we have a case in Goa where the Nephew of Anand Mahindra who was on a Honda Activa was killed by a Swift driver and the ever incompetent Goa police didn't bother to collect the blood sample of the driver and the driver got bail the same day. Mr. Anand Mahindra personally came to collect his body. So in Goa 'the driver was arrested and immediately released on bail' is the standard last line on all accident news even though the Headlines of the same news scream Rash driving.

[poloman]

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

First and foremost thing on team bhp is to respect each other's views. Calling somebody's views nonsense is unacceptable. If you disagree with me, let's respectfully agree to disagree.

What do I do if I want to kill someone? Just drink, drive a vehicle and hit another person? He was drunk and he drove. All that matters. Now if he killed someone and was a genuine accident, that is a different story. I wouldn't have made this statement then.

Can we for a moment get down from these moral high horses. If drunken drivers are taken to task half of the party crowd will be behind the bars. Enforce the law before they kill somebody.
Most of people on social media have become Arnab Goswamis looking for issues on a day to day basis.
You can kill some one you want by intentionally driving drunk, but there lies the big difference. You have a motive Police and prosecution will be able to prove that with out any efforts converting that to a murder case and you may get a life or a noose.
Salman is charged under "Culpable homicide not amounting to murder" which is an offence under §304[2] of the Indian Penal Code. It applies to an event where the death is intentional but does not come within the IPC definition of "murder".[3] It is a non bailable charge.
Now the main argument lies whether Salman intended to kill that person or not. He might have been foolish to beat around the bush rather than admitting the mistake honestly.
i was listening to a channel discussion, Salman had deposited 19Lacs with the court for compensating the victim. The money is caught in a legal tangle for 13 years between the father and the wife of the victim. Now who is responsible for this.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by poloman

Can we for a moment get down from these moral high horses. If drunken drivers are taken to task half of the party crowd will be behind the bars.

And what's wrong with that?

Originally Posted by poloman

i was listening to a channel discussion, Salman had deposited 19Lacs with the court for compensating the victim.

What difference does that make? If you are charged in a murder, you either get convicted or let off based on evidence. You cannot pay compensation and get off. Even if the compensation is accepted by the kin of the victim, it does not absolve Salman of criminal culpability.

[VW2010]

Ah what a relief to read this news. I stopped watching any salman movie from the day this incident happened and i feel very relieved now. I will now watch as long as he finishes serving the punishment.

But i wonder where this will go. The case can be dragged for another 75 years via HC/SC and what not.

If he can drag the case for 15 years here, he can use all his clout and money to drag it even further.

But the only problem i see is the poor attempt to fabricate the blame on someone else. that needs to be condoned and no SC judge is going to take this case as a reason to waste time investigating again.

Get few more years for the hunting case and hope he spends time behind bars for the time he should

And sleeping in pavement is wrong . I just wish that none of us here ever get into such a situation where even pavement would be a gift to just spend that night. Its not by choice these people are sleeping in Pavements and never over estimate that such an state will never ever happen to ourselves.

The argument falls flat for me that they shouldnt have been sleeping in the first place.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by poloman

.......
Salman is charged under "Culpable homicide not amounting to murder" which is an offence under §304[2] of the Indian Penal Code. It applies to an event where the death is intentional but does not come within the IPC definition of "murder".[3] It is a non bailable charge.
Now the main argument lies whether Salman intended to kill that person or not. .......

Excuse me for responding to a post not directed at me and for any offence you may take from this, but may I suggest you read beyond the Wikipedia entry on 'Culpable homicide not amounting to murder' before drawing conclusions of incorrect/unfair conviction?

Below is a link to the whole IPC Section 304. Of particular interest is the part that defines what does/doesn't count as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Sub section 85 is of particular interest, so are quite a few others.

Long story short, I don't have access to the judgment itself, but fair to say the accused was convicted of knowingly indulging in an activity (DUI) that could possibly cause death, and there was no intent to 'murder'. Hence the conviction u/s 304 instead of 302 for intentional homicide. The intent rests on the DUI, not the consequent death. If it was the latter, he'd be looking at a different conviction altogether.

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/

P.S. I agree with you completely that there's a lot wrong with the legal/judicial system, but 'fix all ills before you prosecute me' isn't an argument that'll float anywhere, court or otherwise.

[poloman]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

And what's wrong with that?



What difference does that make? If you are charged in a murder, you either get convicted or let off based on evidence. You cannot pay compensation and get off. Even if the compensation is accepted by the kin of the victim, it does not absolve Salman of criminal culpability.

Nothing wrong in that. But is that happening? Go to the nearest pub and see for yourself how many people are hiring a cab or hiring a driver to drive them home. What is the level of enforcement?
It is not making any difference to the legality of the case. I am talking about the aftermath of such incidents. 19L which should have helped the family is rusting in a court.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Excuse me for responding to a post not directed at me, but may I suggest you read beyond the Wikipedia entry on 'Culpable homicide not amounting to murder' before drawing conclusions of incorrect/unfair conviction?

I don't find any problem in quoting Wikipedia. This is not a legal forum where people will be able to digest heavy legal terminologies. Even in the link you provided there is no much difference in the wordings.

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
279 [304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.]

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by poloman

Salman had deposited 19Lacs with the court for compensating the victim.

Well, Indian Law doesn't recognize 'Blood Money'. So by compensating the victims for the loss, one cannot escape prosecution. In some countries you can pay someone to serve your sentence. That too is not possible under Indian Law.

[Hatari]

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

What do I do if I want to kill someone? Just drink, drive a vehicle and hit another person? He was drunk and he drove. All that matters. Now if he killed someone and was a genuine accident, that is a different story. I wouldn't have made this statement then.

If you are saying its not accident, it amounts to premeditated murder.
Are you saying he had intent to kill?

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by poloman

......
I dont find any problem in quoting Wikipedia. This is not a legal forum where people will be able to digest heavy legal terminologies.

If you're going to quote a legal code and its application to a certain case, the least you're expected to do is understand what you're quoting.

Section 304 is exhaustive, and the Wikipedia entry doesn't even begin to cover the gist of it accurately, not to forget Wikipedia is a user-updated resource that's constantly updated and corrected for errors and enhanced accuracy, so it's not an authoritative source at all.

Did you wonder how the accused ended up getting interim bail, when 'Wikipedia' clearly says it's a non-bailable charge?

I think it's best to wait for the judgment to be made public (if it ever is) to see what exact part of Sec. 304 was applied, instead of debating based on speculation. I'm definitely no legal expert.

[charanreddy]

Every thing said and done.. I am glad a verdict was given even though it took 13 years and hope it was the right decision !

These kind of high profile cases really serve as a grim reminder to the country at large that offenses like DUI or Driving with out a valid license can prove very costly regardless of 'who' you are. Also these can give the police an extra shot in the arm to enforce this more strictly (Hopefully they wont use it to extort money).

[poloman]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Well, Indian Law doesn't recognize 'Blood Money'. So by compensating the victims for the loss, one cannot escape prosecution. In some countries you can pay someone to serve your sentence. That too is not possible under Indian Law.

Dear friend we are discussing here about an accident not murder. Accident victims need to be compensated for the loss either by the offender or the insurance company. Please dont misunderstand me. I did not say anywhere Salman paid 19L. So he should not be prosecuted. What Iam saying is even the compensation money is not reaching the needy due to legal tangles.

[blue_pulsar]

Originally Posted by Hatari

If you are saying its not accident, it amounts to premeditated murder.
Are you saying he had intent to kill?

I do not know what his intentions were. And I do not care. He was not entitled to drive in two ways: 1) DUI and 2) without license. He knew it and still he drove. How am I assured that his intentions were right?

We have to take strict stand against DUI. Today it is someone who slept on the footpath. Tomorrow it might be a near and dear one walking on the road. I shudder to think about the consequences.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by poloman

Can we for a moment get down from these moral high horses. If drunken drivers are taken to task half of the party crowd will be behind the bars. Enforce the law before they kill somebody.
Most of people on social media have become Arnab Goswamis looking for issues on a day to day basis.
You can kill some one you want by intentionally driving drunk, but there lies the big difference. You have a motive Police and prosecution will be able to prove that with out any efforts converting that to a murder case and you may get a life or a noose.
Salman is charged under "Culpable homicide not amounting to murder" which is an offence under §304[2] of the Indian Penal Code. It applies to an event where the death is intentional but does not come within the IPC definition of "murder".[3] It is a non bailable charge.
Now the main argument lies whether Salman intended to kill that person or not. He might have been foolish to beat around the bush rather than admitting the mistake honestly.
i was listening to a channel discussion, Salman had deposited 19Lacs with the court for compensating the victim. The money is caught in a legal tangle for 13 years between the father and the wife of the victim. Now who is responsible for this.

Maybe you should have asked Salman's defence team to ask the judge to get off the moral high horse while pronouncing him guilty.

Secondly, exactly because people have been mollycoddling Salman is the reason for things to come to such a pass.

Please do not forget that he has been involved in the black buck case where also there was perjury. Apart from the legal cases, he has been involved in one too many brawls. Only because people in general and the law in particular have been very lenient towards his misdeeds has it come to this.

I for one am glad that the verdict is guilty because the defence arguments were nauseating. Calling honest witnesses liars, incompetent, forgetful, deaf, etc., while simultaneously buying out witnesses on the side and prompting them to turn hostile, it was such a pathetic turn of events from someone who claims to be a humanitarian.

I also don't understand the logic of bringing up the payment of 19 lacs to the victim. What does that have to do with the verdict in this case?

[k_ajay]

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

First and foremost thing on team bhp is to respect each other's views. Calling somebody's views nonsense is unacceptable. If you disagree with me, let's respectfully agree to disagree.

What do I do if I want to kill someone? Just drink, drive a vehicle and hit another person? He was drunk and he drove. All that matters. Now if he killed someone and was a genuine accident, that is a different story. I wouldn't have made this statement then.

Well, very sorry that my response offended you, but in T-BHP we are also used to calling a spade a spade without sugar coating it, and I thought that's what I did. Maybe I did it wrong? That doesn't take away my sentiment about your post.

If i want to kill someone, I'd do that directly. I don't have to get so drunk that I can't even drive, then attempt to drive (with a car full of people including a police official on protection duty) and hope I will end up killing the person, on a road/footpath. I'd be stupid to take behind the wheel to kill people, if I ever wanted to. Logically, there are better ways.

Once again, DUI is punishable, it is wrong and comes with dangerous consequences. It does not equate to 'intent to kill'. There are many people who drink and drive and somehow make it home safe. Try asking some if they had any intent to kill.

Feel free to respectfully disagree.

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

I do not know what his intentions were.

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

Isn't 5 years of imprisonment too low for killing one person and injuring (attempting to kill) four more?

Without an idea of what his intentions were, isn't the highlighted a pretty bold and invalid statement?

[poloman]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Maybe you should have asked Salman's defence team to ask the judge to get off the moral high horse while pronouncing him guilty.

Secondly, exactly because people have been mollycoddling Salman is the reason for things to come to such a pass.

Please do not forget that he has been involved in the black buck case where also there was perjury. Apart from the legal cases, he has been involved in one too many brawls. Only because people in general and the law in particular have been very lenient towards his misdeeds has it come to this.

I for one am glad that the verdict is guilty because the defence arguments were nauseating. Calling honest witnesses liars, incompetent, forgetful, deaf, etc., while simultaneously buying out witnesses on the side and prompting them to turn hostile, it was such a pathetic turn of events from someone who claims to be a humanitarian.

I also don't understand the logic of bringing up the payment of 19 lacs to the victim. What does that have to do with the verdict in this case?

This is going to be the last post on this thread. I am no Salman fan and hardly seen his movies. I will be the happiest person if he gets convicted in black buck case where he intentionally killed a poor animal.
My point is not to make this as poor/rich argument. Most people are just making sentimental arguments here. Article 304 is extremely tricky. Most of the accidents can be easily brought under 304a, This can open a pandora box. Every policeman can threaten to book you under rash and negligent driving even if you unintentionally caused an unfortunate death on road. You will be going to jail for min 2 years. 1.5L people die on Indian roads every year. Obviously some one will be responsible for each of these deaths.