Accidents and criminal prosecutions

How far defense of Accident goes good in criminal trial?

Would someone be liable for an accident that kill fellow human being? For instance, killing a man thinking it is a duck. Sounds odd! Life is imperfect. You may face odds many times. Uncertain and unexpected happens. So think would you be liable in that same case as mentioned above? You act on good faith to put off fire. Unfortunately nearby building pulled down. Could someone charge for damaging public property? If it does so, social value would reduce. The lack of pity and probity will cause crime.

In many instance court has decided to discharge someone who acts in good faith.

Gunsmith-hammer case: A crowded bus was en route to its destination. A pick pocketer was among the crowd searching pockets of each passengers. The pick pocketer lets his hand into to the pockets of a passenger and found solid bulk object to his dismay. The pick pocket accidentally pulls off something and then a loud gun shot is heard. The passenger dies. Later, the pick pocket realized that he has pulled the gun trigger thinking it to be a purse. Police charged him with murder. But the court had different interpretation for the act. The intention was to steal from the passenger and not to kill him. The pick pocketer never had any intention to kill the victim. Expecting some money or purse from the victim he accidentally pulled off the trigger of the gun concealed in the victims clothing. So the court dropped the murder charges. Yet, the pick pocketer was tried for the charge of attempt to theft which is a punishable offense under penal code.

For instance, let take the following scenario. A captain of the ship who usually follow a route as per his route map routinely. But one day the ship got stuck by heap of sand which resulted in the death of passengers of the ship. Could the captain be tried for negligence or man slaughter? The court would uphold the defense of accident as the incident was not pre-planned nor willful.

Madras High Court: Conviction without Trial not valid

Madras High Court quashes murder case without trial

Madras High Court has upheld that a conviction without trial is invalid. Mere confession before the police officer is not sufficient to convict the accused.

Confessions Cannot Be the Basis for Conviction, Court Needs Recovery' - Justice R.S.Ramanathan

A case of wife-killing, slapped on a man, his lover and five of his family members, was quashed by the Madras High Court which said that they need not be made to go through the rigorous trial, as the entire case had been built on mere confessions made by key suspects to police.

"Chargesheet cannot be filed against the accused solely on the basis of confession, which does not lead to recovery. In this case, except the confession, there is no recovery, Therefore, confession cannot be the basis for conviction, even accepting it as true," said Justice R S Ramanathan, quashing the murder case against Natarajan and others, all from Namakkal district.

According to police, Natarajan had developed intimacy with another woman, and murdered his wife Vijayalakshmi, in order to marry her, After the crime, gold ornaments, mobile phone and other materials belonging to Vijayalakshmi were given to Natrajan's parents and brothers.

Besides Natarajan, police had his parents, sister, brother-in-law and paternal uncle as accused, apparently for having tried to tamper with evidence by destroying mobile phone and personal belonging of Vijayalakshmi. Chargesheet for murder and abetment was filed against all suspects before the judicial magistrate court in Paramathi, Namakkal district.

Supreme Court on Confessions and Recovery:

Counsel for suspects, seeking the quashing of the chargesheet, told the high court that except the confessions of Natarajan and his mother, no other incriminating statements or evidence had been obtained by police, and other evidence like mobile phone too had not been recovered by police.

Justice Ramanathan, accepting the arguments and relying on Supreme Court judgement covering the issue, said when the confession does not lead to recovery, the confession is inadmissible n law, and the chargesheet based on such confession has no legal basis, and is liable to be quashed.

"As confession is inadmissible as no recovery has been made following the confession, to permit the prosecution to proceed against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of the court," the Judge said.

While framing charges on the accused, a court has to consider only the unrebuttable evidence which could get the suspect convicted, he said, adding: "If the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused, then the court would not be justified in framing the charge against the accused." Non-recovery of the mobile phone too proved costly for the prosecution, as court declined to believe their claim that the co-suspects of Dharmalingam had destroyed the handset and SIM card, inviting another criminal charge of concealing evidence.

Self Defence not offence: Madras High Court

Every Person has right to Defend Body

Five years after two criminals- Dindigul Pandi and Velu- were gunned down by the city police in an encounter, the Madras High Court on Tuesday said the police action “done in exercise of the right of private defence” could not be termed as an offence.

“An action done in the exercise of the right to private defence can’t be termed as an offence under Section 96 of IPC. Every person has a right to defend his own body,” ruled the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh.

On February 8, 2010, Pandi and Velu were killed in an encounter at Neelankarai in Chennai. The two were accused in several cases. A PIL was filed by advocate P.Pugalenthi, director of NGO Prisoners Rights Forum, seeking a direction to TN government to register case of murder against the police personnel involved in the encounter.

Police said when they intercepted a vehicle of Pandi and Velu, the duo attacked police, injuring some policemen. In self defence, police retaliated by opening fire.

Police ought to have filed FIR & Probed:

M.Radhakrishnan, counsel for Pugalenthi, said the self-defence plea was available at the time of trial, and that the jurisdictional police ought to have registered an FIR and investigated. Since the death had occurred at the instance of police personnel, an independent probe ought to have been initiated, he said.

Independent probe by Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO):

The bench, pointing out that the report of the revenue divisional officer was exhaustive, said: “A perusal of the report would show that an exhaustive inquiry was conducted and statements from the deceased family members have been obtained. Publications calling for statements were made in the dailies. The report was accepted by the government.”

Pointing out that the petitioner has not assailed the report, they said, “we don’t have factual any premise leading to a conclusion of an offence having been committed.”

Indian Criminal Law: Legacy

Fundamental of Indian Criminal Law

The development of Indian Criminal justice system has seen various phases. Right from ancient code to present modern Criminal procedure has its own history to support it existence. Unlike today, there were no legal practitioners or lawyers or advocates to speak instead of parties to the dispute. Yet, it was modest for its time.

Pre-British Rule:

To our surprise, the legal system was not administered directly through Kings. It entrusted with concerned village administration. Mostly, the justice depends upon the caste, shreni, guilds to administer justice. Kings were only entrusted with the protection of citizens from external aggression or to conquer new territory. Judiciary was handled based on the caste of the person who was alleged to have committed an offence. Example, a Brahmin would get lenient punishment while a Sudra would be subjected to worse form of punishment even though the offence committed was same. So with the other castes. Guilds which over looked a specific trade regulated the conduct of those specific traders. Hence, they were vested with power to administer justice to that class of traders for any misconduct or malpractice which made them to administer justice to the entire village irrespective of the accused profession at the later stages.

Administration of Justice by Kings:

There was little emphasis on King when it comes to justice. But it was in Dharma Sutras, which mentioned the administration of justice is one of the duties of the Kings, for the first time. There is no distinction between private and personal wrong. So there was no distinction between Civil and Criminal law. The administration of justice is solely based on the Law of Wrong. Manu Code which was not only limited to law, had details regarding various well known offenses of the time such as assault, theft, breach of trust, false evidence, slander, adultery, homicide, libel, etc. Wrong which are considered felony is dealt with worse form of punishment than the misdemeanor. Most of the offences were absolved with ‘bot’. Hence, to pursue justice through Kings were mere option to the parties in dispute.

General Exceptions from Criminal Liability:

However, they made distinction between casual offenders and habitual offenders. They were not treated alike. As provided by the modern Indian Penal Code, there was exemption from criminal liability when some criminal acts are done in self-defense, without any intention or mistake of fact or by consent or by accident.

Justice under Moghuls:

With advent of invader, India got through many social changes. One of them is administration of justice. The law was changed according to the needs of the invaders. Yet, the local village justice administration went unaffected for the most part. The Kazi administered Justice. However, the basic nature of Justice didn’t change. Any wrong, the offender was dealt with punishment.

Defects in the Pre-British Rule:

 

There were some inherit defects in the administration of justice. Prior to the advent of British, India was composed of many independent states controlled by small rulers and chieftain which led to plurality of laws. Each individual sovereign, even though controlling a village, enforced laws different from neighboring rulers and chieftains. Though India was unified under single suzerainty seated at Delhi, the local rulers and chieftains has independent control over the part of land under their control. Hence, there was no uniformity in law, unlike British rule brought to India. Not only it did stop with other enactments such as toll, tax, ferry charges, etc. but extended to Criminal justice administration.

 The offences which carry criminal liability were almost same, yet there was profound difference in the justice implementation and methods of dealing the criminal indicted with such offences.

Modern Criminal Law:

The fundamental principles of modern criminal law are founded on rules of equity, justice and fair play. The Fundamental principles governing criminal law administration stated below:

Actus non Facit reum nisi mens sit rea:

The Maxim is “an act in order to become a crime must be committed with a criminal intent”. An innocent act without criminal intent will not attract criminal liability. This is to safeguard a person who does a bona fide act without mens rea which attracts criminal liability. So, any act without ill intent to cause harm will not attract criminal liability.

The mens rea, criminal intent, denotes the mental aspect while the actus rea denotes the physical aspect of the crime. But for mere mens rea the prosecution shall not be initiated. The mens rea must follow an act or omission which must contradict Criminal Law in force. But any act or omission on account of self-defense will not attract Criminal liability if the act or omission is justifiable.

Ignorantia facit excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat:

The Latin maxim states “ignorance of law is no excuse”. The primary reason for implementing the rule is to prevent abusing this clause. Any person accused of punishable offence will claim. In order to avoid frivolous defense, it is forbidden to defend oneself with “ignorance of law”.

Yet, one can take up “ignorance of fact” as an excuse from Criminal Liability. It is justifiable to states that the accused is ignorant of facts. Mistake of fact is admissible while mistake of law is forbidden. Though, “ignorantia juris” is not acceptable, it is helpful to assess the mental state of the accused. 

Expost facto law:

To make an act or omission to do an act an offence, then it must be declared by law. For any act or omission which was not stated in the statue as an offence at the time of commission of the act or omission, criminal liability will not arise. To be simple, at the time of act, such act must have been declared as criminal. This is to safeguard innocents who will later be prosecuted for the past act or omission. Criminal law of any society stands good for the norms and values of that society. Any uncertainty in Criminal law will create unrest and unstable society. This was enshrined in the Article 20 of Constitution of India.

Presumption of innocence:

Unless and until the accused is proved have to done any criminal act beyond any reasonable doubts, the accused shall be presumed to be innocent. This was incorporated to protect the interest of the accused to defend him at any point of the prosecution.

Accomplice:

In Indian Criminal Justice system, the accomplice is place at par with the accused and liable for the same punishment as the principal accused. This was upheld in the Post Master Murder Case where the accomplice claimed that he was merely watching the murder and he was not directly involved in the murder of the post master and so requested for the release. But the court decided the other way.

Rights and protection to an accused:

There are several protections to the accused during trial, before or after the trial. These rights are inalienable. The following are remarkable rights:

• Right to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest
• Right to bail
• To get released on bond
• Right to legal counsel and legal aid
• Right against self-incrimination
• Right against double jeopardy.

The rights which protect accused to fetch a free and fair trail to the accused. This will ensure no miscarriage of justice is done.