Posted:
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday was told that victims of actor Salman Khan's drunken driving were yet to receive compensation even 10 years after the incident. Khan had deposited the amount he was directed to pay by court within a month of the tragedy.
One person was killed and four people were injured when Khan rammed his Land Cruiser into a laundry on Hill Road around 2.45am on September 28, 2002, running over workers of an adjacent bakery who were sleeping on the footpath.
The Bombay high court on October 7, 2002, had directed actor Salman Khan to pay Rs 19 lakh as compensation after the drunken driving accident within two weeks on a public interest litigation filed by journalists Nikhil Wagle and Nilu Damle and Sudha Kulkarni of the Mahila Dakshata Samiti. The actor had complied with the order.
In May 2006, the HC asked the Bandra police to verify the identity of the victims. Once it got the report, the HC directed its registrar to release the amounts payable to the injured.
The court had said that relations of Nurullah Mehboob Sharif, who was killed, was to be paid Rs 10 lakh. Two injured Abdul Rauf Shaikh and Muslim Niyamat Shaikh were to be paid Rs 3 lakh each and Munna Malai Khan and Kalim Mohammed Shaikh Rs 1.5 lakh each.
Thereafter, the matter never came up for hearing, until Wednesday.
When the matter came up on Wednesday, a division bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and V K Tahilramani was informed by activists' advocate Shubhada Khot that "disbursement of compensation has not been done". Even as the injured wait for the payment that was ordered by court, heirs of Nurullah, who was killed, have also filed an application to claim compensation, she added.
The PIL had also challenged application of Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, saying it is erroneous. They had urged application of Section 304-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), contending that Khan knew the consequences of taking the wheel after consuming inordinate amounts of alcohol and yet decided to drive. Such action cannot be called negligence, it added. It also sought changing the sentencing policy under Section 304A to make it a sufficient deterrent. The case is pending in the trial court.
Police had initially applied Section 304A but changed it to Section 304-II. The HC had upheld its application, but the SC set it aside. The apex court directed that the matter be tried by the magistrate court which, based on evidence that may come before it, would decide whether to invoke the section dealing with culpable homicide.
The PIL had said the sentence of two years awarded under Section 304A is inadequate as it deals with the offence of causing death by negligence as a minor abrasion.
They petitioners pointed out that even for offences such as Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon), the sentence is 3 years and for Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) the sentence is 7 years.
One person was killed and four people were injured when Khan rammed his Land Cruiser into a laundry on Hill Road around 2.45am on September 28, 2002, running over workers of an adjacent bakery who were sleeping on the footpath.
The Bombay high court on October 7, 2002, had directed actor Salman Khan to pay Rs 19 lakh as compensation after the drunken driving accident within two weeks on a public interest litigation filed by journalists Nikhil Wagle and Nilu Damle and Sudha Kulkarni of the Mahila Dakshata Samiti. The actor had complied with the order.
In May 2006, the HC asked the Bandra police to verify the identity of the victims. Once it got the report, the HC directed its registrar to release the amounts payable to the injured.
The court had said that relations of Nurullah Mehboob Sharif, who was killed, was to be paid Rs 10 lakh. Two injured Abdul Rauf Shaikh and Muslim Niyamat Shaikh were to be paid Rs 3 lakh each and Munna Malai Khan and Kalim Mohammed Shaikh Rs 1.5 lakh each.
Thereafter, the matter never came up for hearing, until Wednesday.
When the matter came up on Wednesday, a division bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and V K Tahilramani was informed by activists' advocate Shubhada Khot that "disbursement of compensation has not been done". Even as the injured wait for the payment that was ordered by court, heirs of Nurullah, who was killed, have also filed an application to claim compensation, she added.
The PIL had also challenged application of Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, saying it is erroneous. They had urged application of Section 304-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), contending that Khan knew the consequences of taking the wheel after consuming inordinate amounts of alcohol and yet decided to drive. Such action cannot be called negligence, it added. It also sought changing the sentencing policy under Section 304A to make it a sufficient deterrent. The case is pending in the trial court.
Police had initially applied Section 304A but changed it to Section 304-II. The HC had upheld its application, but the SC set it aside. The apex court directed that the matter be tried by the magistrate court which, based on evidence that may come before it, would decide whether to invoke the section dealing with culpable homicide.
The PIL had said the sentence of two years awarded under Section 304A is inadequate as it deals with the offence of causing death by negligence as a minor abrasion.
They petitioners pointed out that even for offences such as Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon), the sentence is 3 years and for Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) the sentence is 7 years.
Love Friendship Dating and Relationships
Suggestions / Comments
30