Celebrity trials
Disclaimer: I am not a Salman Khan or Tarun Tezpal fan nor do I defend the criminal acts that the two have been accused of. I merely wish to point out that are we too harsh on them just because they are celebrities caught on the wrong side of the law?
Celebrity crimes somehow brings out the best and worst forms of activism in us. While every celebrity accused of a crime is instantly pronounced guilty by the media followed by each one of us, are we exerting undue pressure on the Judiciary as well?
A quick search on the net on punishments meted out to accused in rash and negligent driving causing death in road offences has revealed the following information:
A man who knows drinking and driving can cause accident and harm to others, willingly drives, and results in an accident causing the death of an innocent person. The death of the person is caused not by his negligence, but by his willful neglect or recklessness in driving under the influence of alcohol.
In criminal cases there must be rashness or guilty mind of a degree which can be described as criminal negligence. Section 279 and 280 to 289, Section 304A, 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the accused's rash and negligent conduct endangering the safety of others. All these sections cover the possibility or likelihood of injury as a result of the accused's conduct. Under all these sections, there is a rash and negligent act involved as one of the ingredients of the offence and that rash or negligent driving or riding on a public road is therefore, be covered by all these sections.
But Section 304A, 337 and 338 are specific provisions relating to cases in which rash and negligent driving or riding result in the death of another person or in hurt or grievous hurt caused to another person.
Section 304A dealing with causing death by negligence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. The offence under this section is bailable.
Section 336 deals with endangering life, an act that is an offence independent of its consequences and again is bailable.
In most of the convictions in such cases the normal punishment passed has been imprisonment of three to six months to the accused and sometimes even acquitted on appeal.
So in the present case, has the Court been hasty in sentencing Salman Khan to imprisonment of five years? Has the media contributed to a large extent in this sentencing because he is a celebrity?
Another such case of celebrity punishment has been the Tarun Tezpal molestation case where the accused has been subjected to Judicial and Police custody for inordinately long periods.
In short, we are creating a different caste system in the country by judging all celebrities in a class whose every accusation of an offence ending in punishment by trial by media and social media. It leaves the celebrities with no other option but to hush up their crimes with money and influence for free and fair trial in a Court of Law does seem like a pipe dream.
Celebrity crimes somehow brings out the best and worst forms of activism in us. While every celebrity accused of a crime is instantly pronounced guilty by the media followed by each one of us, are we exerting undue pressure on the Judiciary as well?
A quick search on the net on punishments meted out to accused in rash and negligent driving causing death in road offences has revealed the following information:
A man who knows drinking and driving can cause accident and harm to others, willingly drives, and results in an accident causing the death of an innocent person. The death of the person is caused not by his negligence, but by his willful neglect or recklessness in driving under the influence of alcohol.
In criminal cases there must be rashness or guilty mind of a degree which can be described as criminal negligence. Section 279 and 280 to 289, Section 304A, 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the accused's rash and negligent conduct endangering the safety of others. All these sections cover the possibility or likelihood of injury as a result of the accused's conduct. Under all these sections, there is a rash and negligent act involved as one of the ingredients of the offence and that rash or negligent driving or riding on a public road is therefore, be covered by all these sections.
But Section 304A, 337 and 338 are specific provisions relating to cases in which rash and negligent driving or riding result in the death of another person or in hurt or grievous hurt caused to another person.
Section 304A dealing with causing death by negligence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. The offence under this section is bailable.
Section 336 deals with endangering life, an act that is an offence independent of its consequences and again is bailable.
In most of the convictions in such cases the normal punishment passed has been imprisonment of three to six months to the accused and sometimes even acquitted on appeal.
So in the present case, has the Court been hasty in sentencing Salman Khan to imprisonment of five years? Has the media contributed to a large extent in this sentencing because he is a celebrity?
Another such case of celebrity punishment has been the Tarun Tezpal molestation case where the accused has been subjected to Judicial and Police custody for inordinately long periods.
In short, we are creating a different caste system in the country by judging all celebrities in a class whose every accusation of an offence ending in punishment by trial by media and social media. It leaves the celebrities with no other option but to hush up their crimes with money and influence for free and fair trial in a Court of Law does seem like a pipe dream.
Comments
Post a Comment