[kartavya]

I have to admit I am a bit taken aback reading some of the views on here on the case.

Firstly there is just no comparison between sleeping on the footpath and driving on it. Add to that driving under the influence of alcohol. It doesn't matter if a lot of people drive back home under the influence and are not caught. It is the law and if they are caught you will face punishment. Just because we can't punish everyone doesn't mean we punish no one.

Secondly I have 0 sympathy for him. A family lost its breadwinner that day. I can only imagine what pain they must have and are going through. If he really cared about humans (Being human) he should have owned up to his mistake and taken the rightful punishment. 5 years is nothing compared to the pain the family who lost a father/husband will go through for their 50 years.

I am also appalled by the support he has been getting from the Bollywood font and people questioning his celebrity status taking its toll on him. I would never be watching any of the films these people have acted in/will be acting in. Its people like me who have put them on a pedestal.

There is no punishment harsh enough to compensate for taking someone's life because of you mistake. We have a legal system in place and it has spoken and rightly so. Nothing will give back what the family lost that day.

Originally Posted by poloman

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 2 years.

Death might be unintentional but rash driving/DUI definitely is intentional. If my intentional driving causes an unintentional death then I am definitely at fault and would deserve to face punishment whatever is deemed necessary by the court. Try telling the family of the deceased that it wasn't unintentional but one was intentionally driving rash/DUI. There is a reason overspeeding/DUI is a crime.

Mod Note : Please use the EDIT or MULTI-QUOTE buttons instead of typing one post after another on the SAME THREAD!

To know how to multi-quote, click here.

We advise you to read the Forum Rules before proceeding any further.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by poloman

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 2 years.

When did anyone make this a rich poor argument? I don't believe I used that line anywhere.

I never commented on Article 304 either. What are you saying ? And why do you keep jumping to different irrelevant things instead of sticking to one point?

The police do not send you to jail for 2 years. It is up to the judiciary to pronounce verdict and the punishment. In this case, the case ran for 13 years, largely due to delaying tactics adopted by Salman and his legal team.

The judge went through the arguments of both sides and pronounced the verdict. You have been finding fault with the verdict all through this thread, without giving any logical explanation. At least make a reasonable argument to support your stand.

[carwatcher]

Also why No one is talking about Driving without License which definitely is attempting to murder.
Atleast the driver can be charged for attempting suicide.

[Kumar R]

I wanted to write some words on this development. Maybe it will help clear some doubts.

Contributory negligence is very rarely applied in criminal trials. The fact that the victims of the accident were unlawfully / illegally sleeping on the footpath will almost certainly have no bearing on the charges against Salman. For that matter, even if they were sleeping on the road, it is likely Salman would have still been convicted (though perhaps with a lesser sentence).

As regards the charges on which he has been convicted, here is a short summary of the provisions of law relating to homicide.

(1) Any act done with the intent to cause death or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death qualifies as culpable homicide (though it may not necessarily be culpable homicide amounting to murder). The former is punishable with upto life imprisonment; the latter is punishable with upto 10 years imprisonment. (Section 304).

(2) Any death caused by a 'rash and negligent' act and which does not amount to culpable homicide per (a) above attracts a more lenient sentence under a different provision (304A) -- i.e. upto 2 years imprisonment.

Assuming the charge was that Salman was DUI and speeding and thereby killed the people sleeping on the footpath, the question would be whether this attracts (1) or (2) above [and if (1) which part of (1)].

Since Salman had no intention to kill (the prosecution did not make this charge) he cannot be held guilty under first part of S. 304 (i.e. intent to kill). So no question of imprisonment upto life.

The next question (and the Sessions judge has clearly answered this one in the affirmative) is therefore whether Salman's conduct amount to killing a person by an act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Of course, this then depends on what is understood by the term 'knowledge'.

Should driving a car when drunk be taken as doing something with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death?

Instead of writing my own views I thought it helpful to quote from the 2007 Bombay High Court judgment involving an Alistair Perriera (who also was charged with similar offences as Salman - DUI, causing death due to speeding, running over persons sleeping on footpaths, etc.)

"Getting drunk and under the influence of liquor using a big stick or other weapon for giving blow on the head of a person resulting in death, would obviously be an act done with knowledge that the act would or is likely to cause death. Merely because an automotive car or scooter is involved in the same process would not by itself take the offence outside the scope of Section 304 "

"In the present case, the court has to examine whether a person in drunken condition, rashly and negligently chooses to drive in an overcrowded car, was fully aware that (a) poor persons sleep on the footpath of Mumbai (b) it is prohibited in law to drive a vehicle in drunken condition (under influence of liquor) and (c) it is also prohibited in law to drive a vehicle beyond permissible speed limit."

The argument that Salman could not have knowledge because he was drunk is not sustainable as the court has said

"Even before the accused started driving the car he would be deemed to be aware of the law that it is an offence to drive a vehicle under the influence of liquor. In the present case the knowledge would be attributable to the accused as any person of common prudence would be deemed to have knowledge that he is not to drive the vehicle in drunken condition and that too at such high speed and in the manner as the accused was driving the vehicle."

Lastly

"The very fact that he drove the car under the influence of liquor at a very high speed with loud music and making noise while driving are the pieces of evidence and attendant circumstances, which would attribute the knowledge to the accused that his act could produce fatal result of losing control over the car and could injure persons sleeping on the footpaths or even could cause their death."

Like Salman, Alistair Perriera was eventually convicted by the Bombay HC of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (due to act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death) and sentenced to 3 years.

The judgment I have quoted from is available here

The short answer is that in the Indian context esp. crowded cities like Mumbai where it is a fact that people sleep on footpaths (rightly or wrongly) DUI that leads to death of such a footpath-occupant does amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. That being the case Salman has been fortunate to get a sentence amounting to 50% of the maximum.

Needless to say such a determination (of guilt) cannot be affected by:

- whether the accused is rich / poor
- whether accused is a philanthropist
- whether accused shows remorse
- whether other such incidents are only rarely punished
- whether police do not chargesheet hundreds of other DUI drivers similarly

though sentencing can.

The determination, can, however be affected if the accused can prove that he was mentally unsound. Actually, Salman's lawyers did try to bring that up but it was not accepted.

Of course, this reasoning hinges on the belief that it is reasonable to expect a person to know that driving under influence can result in a death of a footpath dweller. That is a subjective call -- one that I am quite prepared to accept.

As for bail, it is the prerogative of a court to grant bail (in non-bailable offences) if the trial is incomplete (trial or superior court), or if appeal is underway (by the appeal court or a superior court in such cases). From my experience it is not uncommon for "ordinary" murder convicts to routinely get bail during the pendency of their appeal and I suspect Salman will also be granted bail just as soon as his appeal is admitted.

Sorry for the long post

[johnjacob]

Originally Posted by poloman

Dear friend we are discussing here about an accident not murder.

The basic point we are all making, is that it was not an accident that he drove while drunk!

[speedmiester]

Sad to see people are still blaming the victims just because the guilty is rich and famous.
What is it was other way around?
Put yourself in the victim's shoes and then comment on it.

Good that the accused is jailed and this should set an example against drunk and irresponsible driving.

[GrammarNazi]

Ek Tha Driver! lol

IMO this conviction is befitting. Also, he should be grateful he got bail (that too within a few hours) after being proved guilty.

Sometimes I wonder if these personalities (both, whether baba's or actors) who're are media constructs, fabricated as 'Mega-Star' / 'Celebrity' (through PR companies, thanks to deep pocketed corporates/brands), a threat to society / social structure...?

Apparently, there's absolutely no proof against Asaram Bapu & he didn't get bail.

And a whole lot of people crying foul saying : "#Bail4SalmanNot4Saints"

P.S.: Don't drink & drive.

[Hayek]

Frankly am shocked that BHPians like Poloman are trying to justify Salman Khan's act by claiming that lots of others do it. I agree lots of others do it, and that is the problem. In most parts of the world, drunk driving is completely unacceptable - and people who kill others while driving drunk get sentenced for decades in prison (Look at this for example : http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthi...ldqpgm#4ldqpgm). People talk of Salman Khan's charitable work, but that started after this crime, and after he was convicted in 2006 in the Rajasthan blackbuck case (where the High Court appeals process is still on). He is clearly a recidivist, who deserved the maximum sentence of 10 years - that would also set an example for folks like Poloman. (Or the Times of India Op Ed team for that matter)

I personally agree that people don't have the right to sleep on footpaths - but that is a crime which deserves a slap on the wrist, not death. And it was pure happenstance that he killed people who were sleeping - driving while drunk could have killed other motorists, the passengers in his car, himself or someone walking home after a long days work.

In fact what we need is much harsher punishment for anyone who drives while drunk - 2 years in jail should be the minimum sentence for that. And stronger punishment for most crimes. And faster trials and appeals hearings. Unfortunately, Mr. Khan is unlikely to exhaust his appeals in his lifetime with the legal army at his disposal. So he is not going to jail for a material period anytime soon.

[Sheel]

Just one thing Sir, I don't know if someone else did say this before, but...

Originally Posted by Hayek

I personally agree that people don't have the right to sleep on footpaths -

They were sleeping on the footpath because they had no choice. Those against it, should open the gates of their palatial homes and accommodate them.

One more aspect - This hearing, punishment & bail was a planned move. You rarely see punishment doled out at that, prior to 2pm. It was all planned. Anticipatory bail and everything. Justice can be bought & will continue so.

[Octane_Power]

Remember reading this somewhere - "If footpaths are not the place to sleep; they are also not the place meant to be driven on"

-Bhargav

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Frankly am shocked that BHPians like Poloman are trying to justify Salman Khan's act by claiming that lots of others do it.

Please don't paint us with that brush. We are NOT justifying the act.

I, and many here, are merely pointing out that there was no intent to kill, so he should not be treated as a murderer. The court didn't do, so why the urge? If he had gone out with a gun and shot the people sleeping in the streets, it would have been murder. Salman's offence does not amount to murder, please read Kumar's post.

Salman's act is punishable by law and he got the sentence he deserved. But please don't take peasure from his plight. He may be rich and powerful, but he does not deserve vilification for not more than what he has done.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Please don't paint us with that brush. We are NOT justifying the act.

I, and many here, are merely pointing out that there was no intent to kill, so he should not be treated as a murderer. The court didn't do, so why the urge? If he had gone out with a gun and shot the people sleeping in the streets, it would have been murder. Salman's offence does not amount to murder, please read Kumar's post.

Salman's act is punishable by law and he got the sentence he deserved. But please don't take peasure from his plight. He may be rich and powerful, but he does not deserve vilification for not more than what he has done.

Some of the posts here are justifying drunk driving, especially the ones quoted by Hayek.

Salman Khan's defence involved perjury, buying of witnesses, character assassination, delaying tactics, etc. In my opinion, these do require to be condemned.

[Engine_Roars]

Saying that those people should not have been sleeping on the pavement, and that is why they got killed is as good as saying that girls should not wear revealing/short clothes, and if they wear its okay to rape them.

That guy was/is a goon. Period. He started this "Being Human" thing for exactly this day, because he knew we Indians are the biggest emotional fools. He killed black bucks, hit a lady, spoiled Vivek Oberoi's career and also do read about constable Patil who was accompanying him on this fateful day(Hint 1: That guy is dead now. Hint 2: He was a witness and he refused to change his stand).

[avira_tk]

It really disgusts me that all news articles about this conviction mention the black buck case as if the dead deer is as important as a human being. It's really sad that Salman faced a more serious sentence for the offence of hunting a deer than causing the death of a man,shows how little we value human life in this country.

I'm glad that the judge saw through the sham defence and attempts at perjury, time to take a case against the driver and find out what he was offered to stand in for his employer.

[saket77]

What a mockery of law! 13 years for a verdict and then a couple of hours for bail! All this in a country where crores of cases are pending across the Courts.
I sincerely believe that justice can be bought in this country.