Hit and Run cases and legal consequences

Introduction To Hit and Run Cases

Hit and Run cases happen when the drivers while driving incur damage to any person’s life, health or property while rash driving and thereafter failing to register their vehicle and driving license with the concerned legal authorities. In layman’s terms, Hit and Run is hitting a person or property while driving and then fleeing. It becomes very hard to identify and punish the culprits because of lack of evidence and witnesses. However, there have been many instances when the law has convicted them.

Statutory Punishment of Hit and Run

Hit and run cases are not specifically punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC) as such. Though, Sections 279, 304A, and 338 of the IPC are applicable in the Hit and Run Cases. Section 279 defines and punishes Rash Driving. There is a punishment of jail term extending up to 6 months and a thousand rupees fine under this section. Also, Section 304A punishes death by negligence. This section is directly applicable to Hit and Run cases which result in the victim’s death. The punishment under the Section is for up to 2 years. In cases where the victim hasn’t died but is grievously injured, the punishment is given in Section 338.[i]

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is applicable to the cases of Hit and Run too. Section 161 of the Act defines “hit and run” as “an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose”. As can be observed by the official codified definition, a hit and run does not always pertain to murder or grievous hurt, but to accidents at large. Section 161 also provides for compensation to the victims of the hit and run; twenty-five thousand rupees in case of death and twelve thousand and five hundred rupees in case of grievous hurt.

Section 134(a) of the Act requires the driver to secure medical attention to the injured persons immediately. And section 134(b) requires them to give the information about and relevant to the same to a Police officer as soon as possible. Failing these two duties, the driver will be punishable.[ii]

Statistics of Hit and Run cases

More than 20000 people lost their lives in Hit and Run cases in India alone.[iii] Hit-and-run cases accounted for 11.4% of all accidents in 2015, an increase from 10.9% in 2014, according to road transport ministry data. In a survey, they found that about 74% of respondents expressed unwillingness to assist victims of road accidents. According to a study Impediments to Bystander Care in India conducted by SaveLIFE Foundation, advocacy working for road safety, and TNS India, a global marketing research company, on July 2013. The SaveLife-TNS study also points to another study by the Indian Journal of Surgery published in 2006. There, it was found that 80% of road accident victims do not receive any medical care within the first or golden hour after the accident.

Problems in Hit and Run cases

The biggest issue in the cases of Hit and Run is the absence of any direct evidence. Usually, there is no hard evidence to put the culprit at the crime scene. This makes it very difficult for the Police to pursue the investigation. Sometimes due to the speeding vehicles and a lot of rush, even witnesses aren’t able to help with the investigation. Also, the witnesses often don’t want to be entangled in the legal framework. The Police have to rely on indirect pieces of evidence in such cases. The investigation requires very precise and careful monitoring of the crime scene.

The witnesses of the accident are also unwilling and reluctant to help the victims. This causes a lot of loss of life. In 2013, the Apex Court directed the Government to make laws for the protection of the Good Samaritans. However, even after these laws are made, they are available mostly on paper. In some states like Karnataka however, these laws hold much importance.[iv]

Conclusion

Hit and Run cases have come to the knowledge of most of the Indians after the infamous Salman Khan case in 2002. He was accused of driving his car onto the Footpath into a group of homeless people. One of them had died. There have been many high profile cases of Hit and Run over the years. And, many which couldn’t get as much attention.

The usual reason found behind these instances is Rash driving, On-road racing and Drink and drive. The victims, either injured or dead are left to suffer while the culprits run free. Even the compensation given to the victim is too low as termed by the Apex Court. A bill is pending in the Parliament to increase the same from 25000 rupees to 2 lakhs.

[i] Indian Penal Code 1860.

[ii] Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

[iii] Rahul Mohan  Sharma, ‘There were 7 Hit and Run cases every hour in 2015’ (Scroll.in, 5 August 2016) <https://scroll.in/article/813185/there-were-7-hit-and-run-cases-every-hour-in-india-in-2015> acessed 12 January 2019.

[iv] Karnataka Good Samaritan and Medical Professional (Protection and Regulation during Emergency Situations) Act.

Simple Guidance For You In Section 323 Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

INTRODUCTION TO IPC 323

The Indian Penal Code covers the offense of hurt under Chapter XVI, i.e., “Offences Affecting Life.” Section 323 punishes voluntary causing of hurt under the same.

The provision laid under Section 319 reads as: “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”

The important points for establishing an offense of under Section 319 are:

• Firstly, bodily pain caused should be physical. In other words, such pain should not be emotional or mental.
• Secondly, infirmity includes temporary mental impairment, hysteria, or terror.
• Thirdly, communicating diseases is also a cause of ‘hurt.’

The courts have taken a mixed approach to the third point. For example, in the case of R v. Clarence[1], there was a transfer of venereal disease from the husband to wife. The husband resisted from informing his wife in spite of knowing about his condition. Because if she had come to see, she would not have agreed for sexual intercourse. Contrarily, the court held that the husband was not guilty of causing ‘hurt.’

It is differentiated from the offense of ‘Grievous-Hurt[2]’. It is of a graver intensity as compared to ‘hurt’ and thus, lesser punishment is applicable in case of hurt.

VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT

A small case under Section 319 is not punishable. Thus, IPC demarcates a separate offense for hurting voluntarily or intentionally. Section 321 states: “Whoever does any act to thereby cause hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said, “voluntarily to cause hurt.”

In Hanif Usmanbhai Kalva v. State of Gujarat[3], the court has discussed the essential ingredients which constitute the offense under section 323 IPC. These areas under:

1. “The accused caused hurt to another person;
2. He caused such hurt voluntarily;
3. S. 334 does not protect his act.”

Exception

Furthermore, these provisions under Section 321 is subject to Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code. Anyone who acts unintentionally or without any knowledge and causes hurt to a person who provoked him would have a reduced punishment as a result of lack of intention.

However, it is necessary here that the provocation must be grave and sudden.

Punishment

A person causing hurt voluntarily is punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both under Section 323 IPC.

However, this punishment is subject to Section 334 which provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both in case of doing the act under grave and sudden provocation.

Read Also: Voluntary Causing Hurt: Provision and Punishment

Other Forms Of Voluntarily Causing Hurt

1. Voluntarily Causing of Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means

Section 324 specifically defines ‘voluntarily causing of hurt by dangerous weapons or means’ as an offense. The special circumstances of voluntarily causing hurt laid down under Section 324 are by means of:

1. an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or
2. an instrument which, used as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, or
3. fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or
4. explosive substance, or
5. the substance which is harmful to the human body to inhale, to swallow, to receive into the blood, or
6. any animal.

Likewise, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, is enforceable in case of voluntary hurt by dangerous means.[4] And it is also subject of Section 334.

2. Voluntary Hurt to Extort Property, Or To Constrain To An Illegal Act –

Voluntarily hurting a person to extort any property or valuable security from him or any person interested in him or constraining to do anything illegal is separately punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also relevant fine.[5]

3. Causing Hurt by Means of Poison to Commit an Offence – 

Section 328 of the IPC says that, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt is an offender.

Furthermore, such an offense would be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.[6]

4. Voluntary Hurt to Extort Confession – 

Voluntarily hurting a person so as to extort any confession or information from either the sufferer or anyone interested, which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct and vice versa, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also makes a person liable to fine.[7]

Illustration: Torturing a person in order to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited makes a person guilty of an offense under Section 332.

5. Voluntary Hurt by Endangering Life in Public – 

Whoever hurts any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.[8]

CONCLUSION

Thus, intentional or voluntarily hurting anyone is a punishable offense. Section 323 of the IPC punishes it accordingly. In addition to this, several separate offenses are also formed in furtherance of a voluntary act.

[1] (1889) 22 QB 23.

[2] Section 322, Indian Penal Code 1860.

[3] Criminal Misc. Application No. 3120 of 2014.

[4] Supra note 2, Section 324.

[5] Ibid, S. 327.

[6] Ibid, S. 328.

[7] Ibid, S. 332.

[8] Ibid, S. 337.

Never Underestimate The Influence Of Criminal Provision Of Defamation – Section 499 And 500 Of IPC

Defamation is an oral or written statement that injures someone’s reputation. Section 499 and Section 500 of IPC deals with the defamation as an offense. It is considered as the statement of fact, which is unprivileged and not true, that must harm someone’s reputation, either by spoken or written, and the same must be published before the third party. The term Defamation covers mainly the false allegation or communication, which tarnished the reputation or decreased the respect that they hold in the society at large. Written defamation is known as “libel,” which is also considered as the permanent form of the defamation,  while spoken defamation is known as “slander.” Both forms of defamation, i.e., libel and slander, derive its origins from English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence.

Every person has a right to have his reputation preserved free from the violation. This right of reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of each and every person as part of the right of personal security under article 21 of the Constitution of India and also considered as one of the most important natural rights. An affection towards reputation inspires people to do great things, acquire fame and name, which is the mainspring of life in every walk of life. The main objective of the provision of the defamation is to protect one’s reputation, honor, and integrity in society.

Defamation in India at present

In India, defamation can be seen as both Civil as well as criminal offenses. The Sufferer or the person who got defamed is offered a legal remedy in both civil as well as criminal. In civil law, the remedy is covered under the Law of Torts where sufferer or victim may go to High Court or any subordinate courts for compensation or damages in monetary form and c, Section 499 provides the definition of “Defamation” and  legal remedy which is the punishment of simple imprisonment which may exceed up to 2 years or Fine or Both, defined under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862.

Section 499 of the IPC defined as

A person or anyone, by his words either spoken or  which shown as a clear intention to be read, or by signature or by any kind of representations which is visible, makes or publishes any charges or allegation which refers any person, intending to harm, or  have knowledge or having a reason to make believe that these kinds of allegation will harm, the reputation or dignity of such person, is to be understood by, except in the case hereinafter expected to defame that person.

The section further goes on to provide some other vital explanation to determine what would create or constitute defamation. Defamation under the IPC may constitute an imputation of a deceased person that would harm the reputation of that person if he is alive and showing clear intention which may be hurtful to the feelings and emotions of their family or any other relatives. It may also amount to defamation to make an imputation refers to an association or company or any collection of persons as such.

The Section however also state that no imputation is said to injures a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the respected character or moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of their caste or of their calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a disgusting state, or a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Section 499 of the IPC also explain some exceptions. These include “imputation of truth” which is essentially required for the “welfare of the public” and thus has to be published, on conduct of government officials which involves public duty, the act of any person touching any public question and merits of the public performance, if someone publishes reports of proceedings of Courts, merits of the case decided in Court of law or act and conduct of witnesses and others concerned with, etc.

Defamation under section 499 and Section 500 IPC vs. Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a): –

The law of the defamation is not punishable in many countries or as we can understand by the way that defamation laws are not criminal laws in some countries of the world, for that the same reason a renowned lawyer-politician Mr. Subramanian Swamy along with several other petitioners (Rahul Gandhi, Mr. Kejriwal, etc.) came together to challenge the constitutionality of criminal defamation, i.e., (Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC) before the apex court i.e., Supreme Court.

 a)- Reason behind the Criminal Provision of Defamation (u/s 499/500) was challenged: –

The basic reason was that it was an unreasonable restriction on the constitutionally-guaranteed Right, i.e., Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code gives us the Right to sue for Defamation if  the person’s reputation was damaged or intended to damage by any other, and the petitioner challenged this on the ground that this was prima facie infringement of Freedom of Speech and Expression provided by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a).

 b)- Some of the arguments that why this criminal provision of defamation(u/s 499/500) must declare unconstitutionally: –

Firstly, Criminal provision of the defamation (u/s 499/500) do not constitute a “reasonable restriction” on speech, and even truth is not an exact defense because the defense only works when the statement is for the public good, which is a question of fact by the court. This could be arbitrary because Instead of making the plaintiff prove that the accused made a false statement, section 499 gives the accused the burden of proving that the statement was not only true but also for the welfare of the public at large.

Secondly, mere on the allegation, a magistrate may issue criminal process that the accused conspired with the person who actually made the allegedly defamatory written statements, also  a criminal suit u/s 499 can be filed even for speech given by the political leaders, which is considered as the most protected speech to sustain democracy.

Lastly, there is also an argument that it is not clear even why the criminal provision of defamation has existed because petitioners are in the opinion that civil remedy is more than sufficient for that.

 c)- Court Held: –

However,  the apex court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation (u/s 499/500) and its constitutional validity. The judgment delivered on May 13, 2016, by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India (“Judgement“) was delivered by Justice Dipak Misra, with Justice Prafulla C. Pant. The Judgment in the case started by analyzing the meaning of the terms ‘defamation’ and ‘reputation’, and their interaction of these terms with the right of the freedom of speech and expression mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The reputation of an individual must be secured as it was included in the protection of ‘dignity’, which is a very important aspect of the constitutionally protected right to life under article 21 of COI. Also, Defamation, in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article (19)(1)(a)  is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Judgement also recognizes principles of reasonable restriction are that the restrictions which should serve the interest of public and should not be excessive; and held that reputation of an individual is a basic element enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity.

In addition, the court also emphasize for upholding the validity of the criminal defamation is online defamation, in the age of the Internet it can be effectively countered only by making it a criminal offense, and this particular law is concerning part of the state’s “compelling interest” to protect the dignity and reputation of citizens.

Finally, the Supreme Court holds that this criminal provision of defamation is not disproportionate. The reasonableness and its proportionality of a restriction are examined from the standpoint of the interest of the general public, and not from the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed. Applying this, the Court adjudged that criminal defamation law (u/s 499/500) to be proportionate. Further, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition which challenges the constitutionality of the criminal provision of defamation, holding that it was a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

 A person is bound to allow the existence of something that one may dislike or disagrees within other words -criticism, dissent, and discordance, but not expected to tolerate a rush which may tarnish the reputation of that person. (SC in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India [AIR 2016 SC 2728]  ).

Original blog is published at LEGODESK  please read the blog for more content and for legal help and service.

Legodesk is a legal practice management tool using which lawyers can manage their matters, win new clients and do their legal research all in one platform. Legodesk’s unique case management features helps to keep your legal practice organized and accessible everywhere.

Ten Difficult Things About Voluntary Causing Hurt : Provision And Punishment

With all the progress we have made as a nation, there is also a big number of crimes happening around us in recent days. And women and children are becoming more part to such kind of crimes, and hence it is essential to be aware of the offenses or wrong which are known as voluntarily causing hurt to someone or anyone and the punishment prescribed for it in the  Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 323 of IPC

Section 323 is an essential part mentioned under the chapter 16th of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, titled “Offenses related to the Affecting Human Body.” Section 323 basically deals with the punishment clause for voluntary causing hurt. But before going further first, we need to understand the meaning of some technical terms, like “Hurt (defined under section 319)”, “Grievous Hurt (defined under section 320)”,  “Voluntary causing Hurt (defined under section 321)” and “Voluntary causing Grievous Hurt (which is defined under section 322)”. So basically the present article only has a relation with Section 323 read with section 321, which defines what actually “voluntary causing Hurt” mean. Though we have to discuss only the provision related to section 323, we also need to understand under this, that there is segregation of some technical terms which mentioned above and it is essential to discuss under this.

“Hurt (which is defined under section 319) ” meaning simply that any person who causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any other person and if the same does happen where knowledge plays an essential role is to be understood within the meaning of “Voluntary causing Hurt (under section 321)”

“Grievous Hurt (which is defined under section 320)” is to be understood as an extended form of Hurt. Under this, there are some different kind of hurt only, which is designated as “grievous” in nature. They are,

Emasculation,

Permanent privation of the sight of any of the Eye or Ear or Permanent disfigured the face or head,

Privation of any member or joint or permanent impairing of the powers of any joint,

Fracture or Dislocation of bone or tooth

or any other type of Hurt which may endanger life or which the sufferer causes severely bodily pain up to 20 days or more or may not be able to follow their ordinary pursuits.

So basically, there are eight important types of hurt which are grievous in nature and on another aspect where knowledge gets involves in any of the hurt which is grievous in nature may amount to be “voluntary causing Grievous Hurt (under section 322).

Read Also: Key differences between IPC and CrPC

Section 323 Of Indian Penal Code 

The definition of the provision “voluntary causing hurt” defined under section 321 and their punishment clause in section 323 of the penal code 1862.  Section 321 states that if a person with pure intention is causing Hurt to any other person. And there exists a piece of knowledge that their action may likely cause hurt to another is “Voluntary Causing Hurt.”

Section 323 defines the punishment for the wrong defines under section 321, states that whoever does the same shall be punished with the 1-year imprisonment or fine of 1000 rs.  or both. Also, if a person without any intention has a knowledge that particular action may likely to cause hurt or gives to another person a “voluntary causing hurt” on the grave and sudden provocation (defined under section 334), then, he or she shall be not prosecuted under section 323, there should be applied some facts for exemption under section 323, as follows:-

1. Firstly, there was no sudden or grave provocation exist,
2. Secondly, the offender had the intention of causing hurt;
3. Thirdly, the offender had clear knowledge that his conduct will cause hurt to the other people
4. Lastly, the offender caused any bodily hurt.

So if any of the facts may going to apply, the accused punishment shifted from section 323 to section 334, and under this, the accused shall be punished with the imprisonment for a maximum of 1 month or a fine which exceed up to 500 or with both.

The offense under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 is Non- cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate Also, Compounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused.

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons

 Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code further clarifies the repercussions of “voluntarily causing hurt using any dangerous weapon or instruments” such as shooting, stabbing, or cutting or any other tool which is likely to cause death and the accused has the knowledge of the same, are much severe. Some examples- fire, heated substance, poison, an explosive substance, or any substance which might be dangerous to the human body in the form of consumption.

Punishment– up to 3 years or fine or Both

Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property or to do an illegal act forcefully 

Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code, deals with the offense of “voluntarily causing hurt with the motive or intention to extort the property from the sufferer or any other person” interested in the victim. This may also include constraining the sufferer or any other person interested in the victim to make them do act illegally directly has relation to the commission of the offense.  The said offense is categorized under the meaning of “grave” in nature.

Punishment: – up to 10 years only or with the fine.

Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from their duty

Section 332 of the India Penal Code defines that Any person, who deliberately causes hurt to any public servant in discharge of his duty or causing hurt with the intention of deterring him from discharging his duty is not acceptable by law and amount to some punishment.

Punishment: – up to 3 years only or with the fine.

Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery

Robbery (defined under section 390 of the penal code) is considered as a serious crime, and that is why Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code deals with such kind of cases where the voluntary hurt was caused during the conduction (include attempt also) of the crime of robbery. The offender or any person (involvement is necessary, directly or indirectly) jointly responsible for such offense of robbery,

Punishment: – Lifetime Imprisonment or Rigorous Imprisonment up to 10 years, sometimes fine may be included along with the punishment.