[AZT]

Originally Posted by sudanmohit

One more update

The boy has finally accepted that he was drunk beyond his senses that day.
I hope the lawyers don't use it as an excuse (that he couldn't be driving in such condition).

It would be interesting to know from lawyers whether being drunk and hitting someone is less severe than being sober. When you are sober you have control of your senses and are wilfully driving fast while when drunk your senses and reflexes are both dull and slow.

I would imagine the boy admitted guilt only after consulting with his lawyers and not basis emotions.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by AZT

It would be interesting to know from lawyers whether being drunk and hitting someone is less severe than being sober...

The rest of the world would see it as far worse. I hope India law agrees. To drive when drunk, even if nothing happens, is endangering others. So he drank, didn't give a damn, killed someone. Worse. Much worse.

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by AZT

It would be interesting to know from lawyers whether being drunk and hitting someone is less severe than being sober. When you are sober you have control of your senses and are wilfully driving fast while when drunk your senses and reflexes are both dull and slow.

I would imagine the boy admitted guilt only after consulting with his lawyers and not basis emotions.

Sorry what? I've never heard of such an absurd question being asked with earnestness.

Counsel for accused rapist or murderer: "Your honour, I request you to be lenient with my client since they did this under the influence of alcohol. They wouldn't have done this if they were not drunk.".

Judge: "Cute. I'm referring you to the BAR council for disrespecting the law and my intelligence."

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by AZT

It would be interesting to know from lawyers whether being drunk and hitting someone is less severe than being sober. When you are sober you have control of your senses and are wilfully driving fast while when drunk your senses and reflexes are both dull and slow.

I would imagine the boy admitted guilt only after consulting with his lawyers and not basis emotions.

While there are many strange things in this country, I hope we have not fallen to this level. The above scenario would be like that of a (hypothetical) man who just killed his parents pleading leniency as he is an orphan.

[deathwalkr]

Originally Posted by AZT

It would be interesting to know from lawyers whether being drunk and hitting someone is less severe than being sober.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

The rest of the world would see it as far worse. I hope India law agrees.

Originally Posted by kiku007

Sorry what? I've never heard of such an absurd question being asked with earnestness.

Originally Posted by electric_eel

While there are many strange things in this country, I hope we have not fallen to this level.

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/le...under-ipc.html

Makes for interesting reading.

Legal system generally does have enough and more of loopholes for wily lawyers to wiggle their clients out.

Edit: I am no lawyer

[DrivingDoyen]

Although intoxication is a general defence available under Indian Penal Code, yet, if the same has been voluntary intoxication, then, this defence is not available to the accused.

In the instant Pune case, it is well proven that he voluntarily intoxicated himself and therefore, he would not be able to claim the defence of acting under involuntary intoxication.

In this sordid case, there are several sections of IPC, Juvenile Justice Act, Motor Vehicles Act etc. breached by the various parties involved, including, but, not limited to, the juvenile, his parents, grand parent, doctors, legislators and the list may go on.

Despite the initial cover up of this matter, as a lawyer, I feel the investigation is now proceeding on right lines and we may have to give credit to the saner counsels that has now prevailed on the powers that be after realising that this is not a matter which can be easily pushed under the carpet, given the public outcry and hightened vigilance.

[Shotgun]

Originally Posted by AZT

It would be interesting to know from lawyers whether being drunk and hitting someone is less severe than being sober. When you are sober you have control of your senses and are wilfully driving fast while when drunk your senses and reflexes are both dull and slow.

I would imagine the boy admitted guilt only after consulting with his lawyers and not basis emotions.

It would’ve been less severe, in case the intoxicant was administered to the offender against his will. Voluntary intoxication leading to diminished senses can never be a defence, in fact in a case like the present, it enhances the culpability of the culprit indicating his rashness and negligence by his act of getting behind the wheel knowing that he was under the influence.

That being said, I think it needs to be said that a lot of the opinions on this thread are conjectures and surmises, based upon unverified news reports. Rendering a conclusive opinion on the basis of such reports only pushes us further away from the truth.

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

Makes for interesting reading.

Legal system generally does have enough and more of loopholes for wily lawyers to wiggle their clients out.

Thanks for sharing the link. I read it and I cannot find any details in the link that imply or provide evidence of wily lawyers using intoxication as a successful defence. In fact, it only reiterates the fact that it is not a viable defence.

Conclusion:
Indian Penal Code dealt with the subject of intoxication as part of general exceptions. There are two sections dealing with the intoxication laws in India that include Section 85 and Section 86 of the IPC. The test has been set to see if a person is liable for the violation or not, i.e. a pre-trial test. In the case of voluntary drunkenness knowledge factor is taken the same as when he was not drunk. The Dutch Courage Rule is used to describe the way the case will be handled.

The cases show the the fact that a person cannot be exempted from serious criminal offences, even if the defence of intoxication is taken. The burden of proof lies with the defendant before the commission of the offence. In some cases, intoxication can be both as a mitigating aggregating factor. Recent developments also suggest that even if the person involuntarily intoxicated the seriousness of the offence is very serious ,then he will be held liable for the offence.

[ashokabs]

I am sorry to have to comment on this forum again. For an accident to happen there must be an unsafe act and/or an unsafe condition. In this case the first unsafe act was allowing the 17 year old to drive. The rest are just adding additional dangerous conditions. The number one culprit is the father as he doesn't seem to have realized that allowing a 17 year to drive is dangerous, not only for himself, but also for others. He should be punished in an exemplary fashion. Why blame a 17 year old boy who has only followed the bad practices he was allowed or schooled in by his parents??

I hope this puts the situation in perspective without any emotions coloring one's thinking.

[ruskinash]

Originally Posted by ashokabs

I am sorry to have to comment on this forum again. For an accident to happen there must be an unsafe act and/or an unsafe condition. In this case the first unsafe act was allowing the 17 year old to drive. The rest are just adding additional dangerous conditions. The number one culprit is the father as he doesn't seem to have realized that allowing a 17 year to drive is dangerous, not only for himself, but also for others. He should be punished in an exemplary fashion. Why blame a 17 year old boy who has only followed the bad practices he was allowed or schooled in by his parents??

Are you suggesting that it was wrong because an underage (legally) was driving a car, or he is too young to drive? Both arguments are null if the correlation is for a good driver.

[ashokabs]

He was underage and did not possess a license to drive. That is an unsafe act.

[Kishoreshack]

Originally Posted by nova.19_exe

Dhruv Rathee

A full breakdown of what, where, how these rich people manipulated everything! Do watch it!

Excellent video
Very well informed video
It shows the reality of india
Laws aren't for you if you are rich

[Thad E Ginathom]

Speaking generally, rather than answering any particular person or post...

I do agree that the parents should be held responsible for the irresponsibility of giving this weapon to a child.

Whilst I use the word child, I have to say that every human being has a brain and a heart, and we learn from an early age to think and feel what is wrong and right. 17 might be described as young adult. At this age one should, to a large extent, be held responsible for their actions.

[krrisdrive]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Whilst I use the word child, I have to say that every human being has a brain and a heart, and we learn from an early age to think and feel what is wrong and right. 17 might be described as young adult. At this age one should, to a large extent, be held responsible for their actions.

You are bringing an important argument to the table. I think in India, 'young adult' term is not legally recognized. And the confusion increases on how child to adult age is applied differently for driving, drinking, marriage, voting, taxing etc.

It is totally grey area at least in the eyes of public. I hope same goes in other countries too.

[Joe367]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Whilst I use the word child, I have to say that every human being has a brain and a heart, and we learn from an early age to think and feel what is wrong and right. 17 might be described as young adult. At this age one should, to a large extent, be held responsible for their actions.

Exactly. He will turn 18 in 4 months. It's not like major brain or muscle development happens in 4 months time period.