Recently we noticed a catastrophic car accident in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar Junction around 2:30 am on Monday by a seventeen-and-a-half-year-old boy who was in an inebriated state and the car’s speed was more than 160 kmph that resulted to the death of two young IT professionals of 24-years old. The most shocking fact is that the boy’s father has permitted the teenager to consume alcohol and drive the car in that state. Later the boy’s father and grandfather tried to frame the driver for the accident but as the locals presented in that accident scene had already seen the teenager as a driver they failed to establish that. All the family members of the boy, 2 doctors, bar managers, and all the associates of the crime are now behind bars. The boy was also given bail by a Juvenile Justice Board but public furore has forced the police to keep him in the observation home. The police invoked various sections of the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act against the boy and the police have also pleaded to treat the juvenile as an adult.[1]

In this article, the author will discuss whether or not a juvenile can be treated as an adult and what the law of our country says about it.

Who is Juvenile

In India, any person below the age of 18 years is considered a child and they cannot be treated as an adult person. But we cannot overlook crime just because of the wrongdoer’s age. That’s why children are divided into three different age groups and are punished accordingly.

There is a Latin phrase as Doli incapax which means ‘incapable of doing harm or committing a crime.’ This principle presumes that a child cannot form the necessary criminal intent to commit an offense. This principle has been mentioned in Sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 82 of the IPC says that any criminal act done by a child less than 7 years of age will not be considered a crime. It gives absolute protection to a child.

Section 83 of the IPC says that when a child within the age bracket of more than 7 years to under 12 years does any criminal act they cannot get absolute punishment. To prove the child is innocent it has to be established in court that the child lacks sufficient maturity and understanding to comprehend the nature of his grave act. It gives qualified or partial immunity to a child.

All accused under 18 were treated as juveniles under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, of 2000. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, of 2015 created a category of juveniles between 16 to 18 years who have committed any heinous crime and the minimum punishment for the crime is 7 years or more can be treated as adults.

The Act has introduced the concept of three categories of offenses:

1. Petty offenses- the offenses for which the punishment in IPC or any other law is a maximum of three years.
2. Serious Offences- the offenses for which the punishment in IPC or any other law is between three to seven years.
3. Heinous offenses- the offenses for which the minimum punishment in IPC or any other law is seven years or more.[2]

Under Section 15 of The JJ Act, 2015 if a child in conflict with the law aged between 16 – 18 years commits any heinous crime his trial will be conducted under the criminal justice system as an adult. The Juvenile Justice Board has to consider certain conditions before deciding whether a child can be treated as an adult or not. Those are-

• Circumstances of committing the crime
• Whether the child was capable enough to commit the crime
• If the child knew what are the consequences of his crime

The board has to finish the assessment within three months. If the board concludes that the juvenile had proper intent and knowledge to commit such a heinous offense then under Section 18(3) the case will be transferred to children’s court.[3]

1. Now the question is whether in the present case, the teenager of seventeen half years old can be treated as an adult or not

The police have invoked sections 304, 304A, 337, 338, 427, and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 185, 184, and 119/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under all these sections the most serious section of IPC that was invoked is Section 304.

Section 304 provides maximum punishment for a crime is life imprisonment but there is no mention of minimum punishment. So, any offense punishable under section 304 cannot be regarded as a heinous crime. In the JJ Act of 2015 also there is no mention of this fourth category where the maximum punishment for an offence is more than 7 years but there is no minimum punishment. There is a lacuna of law here. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v State of NCT and Anr.[4] Said that when a juvenile commits an offense under section 304 that comes under the 4th category of offense that should be considered as a serious offense and not as a heinous offense. The legislature also amended the JJ Act in 2021 and expanded the definition of ‘serious offenses’ to include sections like 304 and IPC.[5]

1. Initially, the teenager was booked under Section 304A and later Section 304 was added what are the differences between these two sections

Section 304A of IPC

If a person commits any rash or negligent act that results in the death of any other person but the act does not amount to culpable homicide that means the accused has no intention and knowledge that his or her act is going to cause the death of any person. The accused is said to have committed a crime under section 304A.

Essential Ingredients

• Death of an individual
• Such death was caused by to rash and negligent act of the accused
• The act of the accused shall not amount to culpable homicide

Punishment

Under this section, the accused will get a punishment of imprisonment which may extend to two years or with a fine or both.

What is the difference between rash and negligent act

Criminal rashness is a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that the act may cause injury to any other person but without any intention to cause the accident or knowledge about the consequence of the act.

Negligence is the omission of doing any act that a reasonable or prudent person will never do by applying reasonable care and precaution.[6]

Section 304 of IPC

Part-I

When a person with the full intention of causing the death of a person or causes such bodily injury that results in death the person is said to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Punishment

If any person commits a crime under this section that person will be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term that may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to a fine or with both.

Part-II

If any person does anything to cause death or to cause such bodily injury that results in death without the intention of causing death then the person is said to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Punishment

If any person commits a crime under this section that person will be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to ten years or with a fine or with both.

The element of knowledge is mandatory for the applicability of the second part of section 304. It may be difficult to find out whether the accused person has the intention the know of the consequences of his action that can cause the death of a person. The presence of knowledge is sufficient to punish the accused under part II of section 304.

Manjeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2014)

Facts– Jai Pal, a person involved in the taxi business, went to Hotel Apsara to inquire from the manager Budhi Singh regarding the booking of his taxi by some passenger. He found the accused Manjeet Singh drinking liquor. On asking him about the whereabouts of the manager, the accused started verbal abuse followed by physical assault. Jai Pal’s companions, whom he met on the road, came to inquire about him. The accused, on being instigated by his friends, shot Carbine which left one of Jai Pal’s companions dead while being rushed to the hospital.

Punishment– The accused was not held guilty under Section 302 but under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC and was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,500/-. The Court also affirmed conviction and sentences for the offense under Section 324, IPC, andSection 27 of the Arms Act passed by the Trial Court.[7]

In the case of Madhusudan Satpathy v State of Orissa, (AIR 1944 SC 474) the accused assaulted and caused the death of the victim with Bhala, and relying on the prosecution witness the High Court convicted him under section 304 Part 1. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that there was only one injury on the head that proved to be fatal and weapons used were not deadly but the accused had knowledge that injuries caused by them were likely to cause death. It was held that the accused was guilty of culpable homicide and his conviction was altered to Part 2 of Section 304 of IPC.[8]

What are the Differences between Section 304 and Section 304 A

• Section 304 provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is a new offense but section 304 A provides punishment for death caused due to rash and negligent acts, which is a part of homicide.
• Intention and Knowledge are two essential ingredients of section 304 where the offender knows the consequence of the act and he or she intentionally does that but to prove a crime under section 304A only knowing is sufficient.

Now after discussing both sections, we can say that the teenage boy in this case drives the car in rash and negligently. And addition to this he has the proper knowledge that if he drives the car under the influence of alcohol with a speed of more than 160 kmph that is going to cause an accident and may result in death as well. So, both the sections applied are justified.

1. Teenage has also been booked under different sections of the Motor Vehicle Act. Can a person be tried under both the IPC and MV Act?

If any person causes the death of any person under the influence of alcohol by driving in a rash and negligent way. The first thing is to find out whether the person was intoxicated or not at the time of driving through a breathalyzer test. The test is done under sections 203 and 204 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If it is found out that there are more than 30 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood after that a medical test is done within 12 hrs and the person gets convicted under section 304A, 279 of IPC, and section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Section 185 of The Motor Vehicles Act

1. a person while driving or attempting to drive a car has more than 30 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood detected in a breath analyser test or by any test. Or
2. the person is under the influence of a substance to such an extent that he is incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle that person will be framed under this section.

Punishment

Under this section, the fine for a first-time offense was raised to Rs. 10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 6 months, and for a second offense, the fine was increased to Rs. 15,000 or imprisonment of up to 2 years.

When a person gets convicted for causing death or serious injury to a person under the MV Act, this act is not sufficient to give him punishment. As the offense is so serious and grave the aggrieved party can get relief under both the act. As a result, the offenders are liable to pay compensation imprisonment, or both.

There are some reasons behind it–

• MV act is compoundable which means it is less serious and complaints can be withdrawn against the accused. On the other side the scope of IPC is so vast and it covers a multiplicity of offences and complaints filed once under this section cannot be withdrawn and there is no chance of compromise.
• The punishments provided under the MV Act are more lenient and the fine amount is also much less. On the other hand, IPC provides stringent punishment and exemplary punishment.
• The MV act is silent about the deaths of persons and causing grievous hurt because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Whereas IPC has so many sections to deal with, and those are sections 279, 304, 304A, 336, 337, 338.[9]

Section 279 of IPC

Any person who drives his or her vehicle or rides in a public vehicle in such a manner with so much rashness or negligence that endangers human life or causes hurt or injury to any other will get punished under this section.

Punishment

Any accused under this section will be imprisoned for a term of six months and/ or with a fine.

Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC

When a person’s negligent and rash act causes hurt to any person thereby endangering the human life or the personal safety of others shall get punishment under section 337 of IPC.

When the rash and negligent act of any person causes grievous hurt to any person by endangering the life and personal safety the accused will get punishment under section 338 of IPC.

Punishment

Under section 337 imprisonment for a maximum term of six months or with a fine that may extend to five hundred rupees or both.

Under section 338 imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or with a fine that may extend to thousand rupees or both.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its 2019 judgment has clearly stated that a person committing an offence because of rash and negligent driving could be tried and punished separately under Motor Vehicles Act and Indian Penal Code.

in The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Rabidasa two-judge bench of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice R Subhash Reddy stated that there is no explicit bar that prevents a crime from being prosecuted under both the sections. While giving the judgment the court turned down a Gauhati High Court judgment that both the sections cannot be applied together emphasizing the fact that both the statutes are different from each other, and the criminal law has broader aspects than the MV act. Therefore, the general rule that special laws prevail over general laws has no applicability in it.

The court also says that if the IPC gives way to the MV Act and the provisions of CrPC surrendered to the MV Act then the cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing death, or grievous hurt, or simple hurt by rash and negligent driving, would be considered lightly as the MV act is compoundable and if a person pleads guilty before the court and deposits the fine no proceedings will be held against the accused. But IPC ensures a criminal gets proper punishment so that there is no repetition of the crime by the accused and also prevents others from committing the same crime.

The court has reiterated many times the need for strict punishment in case of crimes that are grave because the principle of proportionality has to be kept in mind. If there is no maintainability issue an offender can be punished under both statutes even though some of the provisions overlap.[10]

Conclusion

There is no doubt about the fact that the accident is horrifying as the desperation and negligency of an affluent kid has taken two innocent lives. But we have to keep in mind with the progression of time we have shifted towards the reformative approach of giving punishment. The uproar that was created by the public after the boy got bail from the Juvenile Justice Board that led to his remand in the juvenile home till now is legal or not needs to be decided. Rather than pressurizing on a single accused, we should create awareness and sincerity among the youth of our society so that these types of mishaps can be reduced.

---

[1] Can Teen Accused In Pune Porsche Accident Be Tried As Adult? Has It Happened Before? What’s The Law? , available at: https://www.news18.com/explainers/can-teen-accused-in-pune-porsche-accident-be-tried-as-adult-has-it-happened-before-whats-the-law-8899836.html/ ( ;last visited on June 22, 2024).

[2] Doli Incapax , available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/doli-incapax/#:~:text=Doli%20incapax%20is%20a%20Latin,intent%20to%20commit%20an%20offence./ (last visited on June 22, 2024).

[3] Offences Which Do Not Provide a Minimum Sentence of 7 Years Imprisonment Are Not Heinous: SC, available at: https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-offence-minimum-imprisonment-seven-years-heinous / (last visited on June 22, 2024).

[4] Shilpa Mittal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 405, 2020 (2) SCC 787

[5] The Pune Porsche Case: Unpacking the Law on Bail, the ‘Essay’ and the Child-Adult Question, available at: https://p39ablog.com/2024/05/the-pune-porsche-case/ (last visited on June 22, 2024).

[6] K D Gaur, Textbook on INDIAN PENAL CODE 910. ( Lexis Nexis, Haryana, 8^th edn., 2023)

[7] Scope and Applicability of Part 1 and 2 of Section 304 for Culpable Homicide, available at: https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3192-scope-and-applicability-of-part-1-and-2-of-section-304-for-culpable-homicide.html / (last visited on June 22, 2024).

[8] Scope and Applicability of Part 1 and 2 of Section 304 for Culpable Homicide, available at: https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3192-scope-and-applicability-of-part-1-and-2-of-section-304-for-culpable-homicide.html / (last visited on June 22, 2024).

[9] Criminal liability which arises from motor accidents, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/criminal-liability-which-arises-from-motor-accidents/#Evolution_of_law_of_crimes_and_motor_accidents / (last visited on June 22, 2024).

[10] [10] The State Of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra Rabidas, AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 4954, 2019 (10) SCC 75

Traffic offenders can be tried under both IPC & MV Act: SC, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/traffic-rule-violators-can-be-prosecuted-under-both-mv-act-ipc-sc/articleshow/71496428.cms / (last visited on June 22, 2024).

---

Author: Soumi Kundu

---