“Immediate arrest may appease people’s anger but may not go beyond that”
The arrest of those suspected of causing the death of children and workers by their negligence in recent tragic incidents in and around the city has raised the question whether such arrests are indeed necessary.
The question, over which there is no unanimity of opinion, is especially pertinent in the case of those held on the premise of vicarious liability — in their capacity as proprietors or heads of institutions or supervisory or assistive staff related to the site of the accidents.
Senior advocate N.G.R. Prasad is clear that negligence of the kind that has been seen in schools and construction sites is no doubt a serious matter. “But, the immediate remedy is not the arrest of persons for vicarious liability.”
Immediate arrest may appease people’s anger but may not go beyond that. Mr. Prasad adds that there should be speedy investigation and a quick trial. And compensation should be awarded to the victims.
Some lawyers feel that arresting someone on premises of constructive responsibility may not necessarily result in conviction, but it will certainly send out a strong message to all those involved.
Senior advocate R. Gandhi also feels that an immediate arrest would send the right signal. In the case of the death of Shruti, the schoolgirl from Mudichur who fell through a hole in the bus or Ranjan of Alwarthirunagar in Chennai, who died in a swimming pool in his school, there is some negligence on the part of the management too. “This sort of action by the State and by the High Court will lead people to be extremely careful about the way they run the institutions.” Some of these incidents are not merely accidents, but instances of gross negligence, and therefore, even if the prosecution does not end in conviction, arresting those involved will have a preventive effect, according to Mr. Gandhi.
V. Suresh, a lawyer and president of the Tamil Nadu chapter of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) cites the law laid down by the Supreme Court (in Joginder Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1994) to argue that arrest of a person is required only if she is likely to escape the law, tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
A quick investigation and speedy prosecution will be the alternative to putting someone behind bars at a pretrial stage.
“Arrests as a knee-jerk reaction may give the impression that the police are more interested in satisfying an angry public rather than in the criminal justice delivery system,” says Dr. Suresh.
T. Mohan, advocate, says such arrests are symptoms of a malaise — the weak faith that people have in the system. “They have no faith that the police investigation will be good enough to result in conviction. Therefore, the only punishment the people see is pretrial incarceration.”
The fear among lawyers about arresting all those who could have remotely contributed to the death of, say, a child, is that after the initial flush of anger subsides, all those arraigned, including those culpable, may be acquitted. “There will hardly be a murmur of protest. This is the sorry state of affairs,” Mr. Mohan observes.
The people’s involvement in criminal justice should go beyond immediate anger and must last till trials end in conviction and appeals are dismissed.
However, senior advocate K.S. Dinakaran holds a different view. “In these cases, nothing is wrong in arresting the accused immediately for criminal negligence. Normally, cases are booked against them under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of IPC. In cases of gross negligence, the case should be under Section 304, part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Keywords: children's deaths, negligence
Immediate arrest in such cases will have deterrent effect.
Death of children due to the negligence of people directly or indirectly involved should be treated as second degree murder and guilty should be punished. In Texas, US a child was left in the car by her father unknowingly when he went for shopping in a super market and the child died due to heat and exhaustion. Court took serious note of this and awarded jail sentence of four years for causing endangerment to the child. The lawyers should place themselves in the position of the grieved parents before arguing in the suits before courts.
Making the management & supervisor is as important as locating the cause of crime, by letting me go off the responsibility also sends a very wrong signal beside missing a very very important link in most cases of such accidents as the head of institutions & supervisors also must share to care for the safety & security of the wards. Let them put themselves in the parents shoes & get feeling of loss & lack justice cause by absence of collective responsibility.
I think that arresting responsible people for negligence will imbibe a
sense of fear and some kind of humiliation in the so called top
echleons of society who think they can go scot free after being party
to mistakes. It is their power postion and money clout which makes
them responsible for this kind of difference. Instead of superfically
arresting them and getting them on bail they should spend a minimum
period in jail so that it assures that they do the mistake again or
make them think. They have to think about the kids safety and not the
monetray gains alone.
A quick investigation and speedy prosecution will be the alternative to putting someone behind bars at a pretrial stage.
It is very strange for Advocates to ask Police to do the above, as they are the people who delay the court proceedings even for drop of a hat and very flimsy reasons. Let them set right their house first of all before finding fault with others.
Please Email the Editor