Striking fear: On hit-and-run accident cases and Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Drivers’ strike is a test for severity of hit-and-run clause in new penal code

The provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) that treats hit-and-run accident cases as an aggravated (money that is paid to someone in exchange for something that has been lost or damaged or for some problem) form of the offence (an illegal act; a crime) of causing death by rashness (the quality of being careless or unwise, without thought for what might happen or result) or negligence (the fact of not giving enough care or attention to someone or something) will be the first in the new, yet-to-be implemented (to put a plan or system into operation) code to be scrutinised (to examine something very carefully to discover information) for its severity (seriousness). With truck drivers worried about the implications (an occasion when you suggest or show that someone is involved in a crime) of Section 106 of the BNS abstaining (to not do something, especially something enjoyable that you think might be bad) from work, the government has promised to bring it into play only after consultations (a meeting to discuss something or to get advice) with the All India Motor Transport Congress. However, with the transporters’ body taking the stand that the strike was primarily resorted to by the drivers who feared additional criminal liability (the fact that someone is legally responsible for something), the issue will require tactful (careful not to say or do anything that could upset someone) handling. It has now become an issue that concerns transport workers than those running the business of transportation. It may appear that a strike against a law that makes penal provisions (a statement within an agreement or a law that a particular thing must happen or be done) concerning hit-and-run accidents more stringent is unjustified, especially in the context of road accidents becoming a leading source of fatalities (death caused by an accident or by violence, or someone who has died in either of these ways) in the country. However, it has also drawn attention to the question whether there was a case for increasing the jail term for accidents from two to five years in all cases, and to 10, in the case of failure to report them to the authorities.

Section 106 of the BNS will replace Section 304A of the IPC, which punished the causing of death by rash and negligent (not being careful or giving enough attention to people or things that are your responsibility) act that does not amount to culpable (deserving to be blamed or considered responsible for something bad) homicide (the crime of killing a person; murder). The existing section provides for a two-year jail term. There are three components to Section 106: first, it prescribes a prison term of up to five years, besides a fine, for causing death due to rash or negligent acts; second, it provides for reduced criminal liability for registered medical doctors of two years in jail, if death occurred in the course of a medical procedure (a set of actions that is the official or accepted way of doing something). The second clause concerns road accidents in which, if the person involved in rash and negligent driving “escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident”, the imprisonment (the act of putting someone in prison or the condition of being kept in prison) may extend to 10 years and a fine. Drivers flee an accident scene out of fear of lynching (the act of killing someone without a legal trial, usually by hanging). In such cases, the authorities seem to believe that such drivers can move away from the scene of crime and then report to the police. The term ‘hit-and-run’ is one in which the offending vehicle is not identified. It must be emphasised that once the person causing a fatal accident is identified, the onus on the police to prove culpability for rashness or negligence remains the same. Given that many accidents are caused due to poor road conditions too, a relevant question is whether the law should focus on raising prison terms or on a comprehensive (complete and including everything necessary) accident prevention policy package covering imprisonment, compensation (money that is paid to someone in exchange for something that has been lost or damaged or for some problem) and safety.

Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.