[poloman]

With due respect to the departed soul the punishment was too harsh. Take away the fact whether he was under influence, this can happen to any one on this forum. Footpath is not the place to sleep, however cruel this statement may sound this is a reality.

[SDP]

Originally Posted by wheeledsoul

A bit harsh I would say considering that he is already into charity and social work. Agreed he was driving under influence (if indeed he was driving), and had no license but is his offense more serious than that star's who was fully aware of the plot and lent logistical support to anti national elements who were plotting against the nation which resulted in a significant loss of life, property and not to forget the scar it left on the nation.

This star helping anti nationals gets a meagre 42 months jail term with repeated furloughs while Salman gets 60?
...

Why compare with a completely unrelated case?

[saket77]

My point is little distracting from the discussion of the punishment. I feel that sleeping on a footpath also amount to negligence. Had there been nobody sleeping on a main road footpath (which ideally is no place to sleep), this accident would have not caused a loss of life. I may trigger another discussion with this statement though.

Edit: I am neither a Salman, nor a mainstream bollywood fan.

[binand]

Originally Posted by blacksport

It is an act of negligence and there was no intent to kill. Culpable, yes. Punishable, yes. Yet I feel sorry for him.

As someone who has been at the receiving end of drunken driving multiple times, I don't. There is no way I can condone drunken driving by diluting it as "no intent to kill". You take the driving seat when you are drunk, you do have an intent to kill.

Originally Posted by wheeledsoul

is his offense more serious than that star's who was fully aware of the plot and lent logistical support to anti national elements who were plotting against the nation which resulted in a significant loss of life, property and not to forget the scar it left on the nation.

I also don't like this comparison of criminal X with criminal Y. Our man was convicted of IPC 304, the act specifies the punishment (of which he got only half). The other man was convicted of Arms Act violations, was also sentenced to 5 years (I think the max punishment for his was 7 years as per the act) but got credit for time already spent in jail - which pretty much everyone gets. Different crimes, different punishments in the law book.

Originally Posted by poloman

Footpath is not the place to sleep, however cruel this statement may sound this is a reality.

Footpath is not the place to drive either.

[wheeledsoul]

Originally Posted by poloman

With due respect to the departed soul the punishment was too harsh. Take away the fact whether he was under influence, this can happen to any one on this forum. Footpath is not the place to sleep, however cruel this statement may sound this is a reality.

Originally Posted by saket77

My point is little distracting from the discussion of the punishment. I feel that sleeping on a footpath also amount to negligence. Had there been nobody sleeping on a main road footpath (which ideally is no place to sleep), this accident would have not caused a loss of life. I may trigger another discussion with this statement though.

Agree.
So the govt., Municipality and the bakery owner should be sued too for their negligence, as they let them sleep over there. Sounds as absurd as the judgement I guess.

[Dodge_Viper]

Originally Posted by saket77

My point is little distracting from the discussion of the punishment. I feel that sleeping on a footpath also amount to negligence. Had there been nobody sleeping on a main road footpath (which ideally is no place to sleep), this accident would have not caused a loss of life. I may trigger another discussion with this statement though.

Edit: I am neither a Salman, nor a mainstream bollywood fan.

Amazing. Tomorrow at a bus stop few people are standing (on footpath) for a bus and a drunk driver comes and crushes them, will people say "standing on footpath" also amounts to "negligence"?

God help us!

[poloman]

Originally Posted by binand

Footpath is not the place to drive either.

What if God forbid your car's front tyre busts and your car ploughs in to the footpath?
So from now on all accidents should be treated as culpable homicides ? Let us be a little real here. Do you think if the person who did this was not Salman he would have got such a harsh punishment? Can you point out some similar cases which got 5 year punishment in jail?

[saket77]

Originally Posted by Dodge_Viper

Amazing. Tomorrow at a bus stop few people are standing (on footpath) for a bus and a drunk driver comes and crushes them, will people say "standing on footpath" also amounts to "negligence"?

God help us!

Analogies! They are fantastic.

With no intent to take the side of the actor, he deserves punishment for what he did and more so because of being under the influence of alcohol. But looks like it is okay to sleep on footpaths according to you. And equating with people standing to catch a bus!

Regards.

[akshay4587]

Originally Posted by poloman

With due respect to the departed soul the punishment was too harsh. Take away the fact whether he was under influence, this can happen to any one on this forum. Footpath is not the place to sleep, however cruel this statement may sound this is a reality.

It is not a place to drive your car either.
5 years in prison is too small a price to pay for sniffing out a few lives.
Why just 5, he should be behind bars for the rest of his life.

Originally Posted by saket77

Analogies! They are fantastic.

With no intent to take the side of the actor, he deserves punishment for what he did and more so because of being under the influence of alcohol. But looks like it is okay to sleep on footpaths according to you. And equating with people standing to catch a bus!

Regards.

Off course it is not ok to sleep on a footpath.
But no body sleeps on a footpath out of choice.
The victims were there because they probably had no other option.

And yes, one can get run over while standing on a footpath; then people will say, why was the person stationary and not walking, as foot paths are meant for walking, and not waiting.

[rr_zen]

While there can be a wide spectrum of view points here, the fundamental issue here is driving under influence of alcohol. To me, that says it all. Sleeping on the footpath may not be the right thing to do but is not such a heinous crime as DUI. And it is sad that it has taken more than a decade for the verdict to be out.

[Cartman]

Originally Posted by saket77

Analogies! They are fantastic.

With no intent to take the side of the actor, he deserves punishment for what he did and more so because of being under the influence of alcohol. But looks like it is okay to sleep on footpaths according to you. And equating with people standing to catch a bus!

Regards.

Sirjee, kabhi aao Mumbai! There's no other way of saying it. People flock to Mumbai on a whim and a prayer. They have no way of arranging accommodation. Neither monetary, nor otherwise. What do you expect them to do?



Justice has been delayed, but the decision is correct.


Cheers!
Cartman

[saket77]

Originally Posted by akshay4587

Off course it is not ok to sleep on a footpath.
But no body sleeps on a footpath out of choice.
The victims were there because they probably had no other option.

And yes, one can get run over while standing on a footpath; then people will say, why was the person stationary and not walking, as foot paths are meant for walking, and not waiting.

I knew I was stirring a debate here.
Please no analogies. Lets talk fact & what actually happened.

Agree to your point that victims might not have other places to sleep; but rather than choosing a main road footpath, a better & safer place is footpath on the by-lanes. Sure Mumbai has no shortages of narrow by-lanes.

Originally Posted by Cartman

Sirjee, kabhi aao Mumbai! There's no other way of saying it. People flock to Mumbai on a whim and a prayer. They have no way of arranging accommodation. Neither monetary, nor otherwise. What do you expect them to do?
Justice has been delayed, but the decision is correct.
Cheers!
Cartman

Thanks for the invite. Though have spent a good amount of time in Mumbai. I am not totally alien to the place.
I do not question the judgment. 5 years, IMO is not at all a harsh punishment. My point is if one has to sleep on a footpath, they should choose by-lanes. That's it.

Regards.

[Dodge_Viper]

Originally Posted by saket77

but rather than choosing a main road footpath, a better & safer place is footpath on the by-lanes. Sure Mumbai has no shortages of narrow by-lanes.

Regards.

Buddy, , what difference it makes? A car can't enter by-lanes?

[binand]

Originally Posted by poloman

What if God forbid your car's front tyre busts and your car ploughs in to the footpath?
So from now on all accidents should be treated as culpable homicides ? Let us be a little real here. Do you think if the person who did this was not Salman he would have got such a harsh punishment? Can you point out some similar cases which got 5 year punishment in jail?

The charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was tagged on after he was detected to be DUI. And yes, I do think DUI accidents resulting in fatalities do deserve that charge.

And I don't think the punishment is harsh; on the contrary it is positively lenient (he got only half of the prescribed maximum punishment). I don't want to opine on whether his celebrity status affected the judge's judgment - in other cases the point has been made that celebrities have it easy under the justice system of India.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by Dodge_Viper

Buddy, , what difference it makes? A car can't enter by-lanes?

Yup; they do. But speeds are generally slower on narrow roads and number of cars entering by-lanes at night is very less.

Regards.