1|Page

ACCIDENTS AND THEIR IMPACT ON POVERTY

2|Page

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………03

2. ACCIDENT…. ………………………………………………………………........04

3. ACCIDENT INSURANCE…………………………………………………..05 - 07

4. WORK PLACE ACCIDENTS…………………………………………….…07-08

5. ADDITTIOANL COMMON WORK ACCIDENTS……….………………09 - 12

6. ISSUES………………………….. …………………………………………………12

7. OBJECTIVES…………………………. ………………………………….............13

8. POVERTY AND ACCIDENTS…………………………………………………...13

9. DISPROPORTIONATE AFFECT OF FATAL CAR ACCIDENTS ON

POOR…………………………………………………………………………........14

10. INVOLVEMENT OF POOR………. …………………………………….………15

11. IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLDS…..……………………………………………….15

12. ACCESS TO JUSTICE…………………………………………………………..16

13. CASE LAW ……………………………………………………………….…16 - 25

3|Page

INTRODUCTION
Road crashes are becoming a global health crisis and, as such, require comprehensive
measures to prevent them, including a better understanding of the social impacts of road-
related deaths and injuries.

Several indicators aim to illustrate the impact of traffic crashes. The most common ones are
the number of fatalities and injuries. Globally some 1.3 million people die on the road every
year and up to 50 million suffer injuries. And overall economic costs of road crashes range
from 2-5 percent of GDP in many countries. These economic costs provide a basis for
transport safety improvement projects such as hazard location treatments, road audits, school
zones and other preventive measures.

It is important, however, to turn our eyes on the impact of road crashes at the household level.
The impact on a family in losing a loved one is enormous, both in terms of emotional trauma
and/or loss of income or caused disability, especially when many poor countries do not have
strong enough safety nets for victims of road crashes. The impact of road crashes is less
understood, and lack of strong data or evidence on these is a challenge in many countries.

If a member of a family is involved in a road crash, what kind of changes are likely to occur
in that particular family? If the head of household or breadwinner is killed or severely
injured, the impact to that household can be devastating. There are scarcely plausible surveys
that show the effects of road crashes on households because it is presumably difficult to trace
victims of road crashes.
4|Page

ACCIDENT

The word accident is derived from the Latin verb “accidere,” signifying "fall upon, befall,
happen, chance."

Accident:

An unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstances; or an unfortunate event

resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance (Webster's Dictionary).

In its most commonly accepted meaning, or in its ordinary or popular sense, the word may be
defined as meaning: some sudden and unexpected event taking place without expectation,
upon the instant, rather than something that continues, progresses or develops; something
happening by chance; something unforeseen, unexpected, unusual, extraordinary, or
phenomenal, taking place not according to the usual course of things or events, out of the
range of ordinary calculations; that which exists or occurs abnormally, or an uncommon
occurrence. The word may be employed as denoting a calamity, casualty, catastrophe,
disaster, an undesirable or unfortunate happening; any unexpected personal injury resulting
from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence; any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence that
causes injury, loss, suffering, or death; some untoward occurrence aside from the usual
course of events. An event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an
undersigned, sudden, and unexpected event.

Accident is not always a precise legal term. It may be used generally in reference to various
types of mishaps, or it may be given a technical meaning that applies when used in a certain
statute or kind of case. Where it is used in a general sense, no particular significance can be
attached to it. Where it is precisely defined, as in a statute, that definition strictly controls any
decision about whether a certain event covered by that statute was in fact an accident.

In its most limited sense, the word accident is used only for events that occur without the
intervention of a human being. This kind of accident also may be called an act of God. It is an
event that no person caused or could have prevented—such as a tornado, a tidal wave, or an
ice storm.
5|Page

ACCIDENT INSURANCE

An accident insurance policy can by its terms be limited to coverage only for this type of
accident. Damage by hail to a field of wheat may be considered such an accident.

A policy of insurance, by its very nature, covers only accidents and not intentionally caused
injuries. That principle explains why courts will read some exceptions into any insurance
policy, whether or not they are expressly stated. For example, life insurance generally will
not compensate for a suicide, and ordinary automobile insurance will not cover damages
sustained when the owner is drag racing.

Accident insurance policies frequently insure not only against an act of God but also for
accidents caused by a person's carelessness. An insured homeowner will expect coverage, for
example, if someone drowns in his or her pool, even though the accident might have occurred
because someone in the family left the gate open. Not every unintended event is an accident
for which insurance benefits can be paid; all the circumstances in a particular case must first
be considered.

FOR EXAMPLE

A policeman who waded into a surging crowd of forty or fifty fighting teenagers and then
experienced a heart attack was found to have suffered from an accident. In another case, a
man who was shot when he was found in bed with another man's wife was also found to have
died in an accident because death is not the usual or expected result of Adultery. However,
the family of another man was not allowed to collect insurance benefits when he was shot
after starting a fight with a knife. In that case, the court ruled that Deadly Force was a
predictable response to a life-threatening attack, whether the instigator actually anticipated it
or not.

Different states apply different standards when determining if an accident justifies payment
of benefits under Workers' Compensation. Some states strictly limit benefits to events that
clearly are accidents. They will permit payment when a sudden and unexpected strain causes
an immediate injury during the course of work but they will not permit payment when an
injury gradually results from prolonged assaults on the body. Under this approach, a worker
who is asphyxiated by a lethal dose of carbon monoxide when he goes into a blast furnace to
6|Page

make repairs would be deemed to have suffered in an accident. However, a worker who
contracts lung cancer after years of exposure to irritating dust in a factory could not claim to
have been injured in an accident. Because of the remedial purpose of workers' compensation
schemes, many states are liberal in allowing compensation. In one state, a woman whose
existing arthritic condition was aggravated when she took a job stuffing giblets into partially
frozen chickens on a conveyor belt was allowed to collect workers' compensation benefits.

Insurance policies may set limits to the amount of benefits recoverable for one accident. A
certain automobile insurance policy allowed a maximum of only $200 to compensate for
damaged clothing or luggage in the event of an accident. When luggage was stolen from the
insured automobile, however, a court ruled that the event was not an accident and the
maximum did not apply. The owner was allowed to recover the full value of the lost property.

Sometimes the duration of an accident must be determined. For example, if a drunken driver
hit one car and then continued driving until he or she collided with a truck, a court might
have to determine whether the two victims will share the maximum amount of money
payable under the driver's liability insurance policy or whether each will collect the full
maximum as a result of a separate accident.

In insurance parlance, a term that is included within the insuring agreement of many types of
liability insurance. In a few cases, the word "accident" is a defined term within the policy. In
most cases, however, common law becomes the determinant of what is, or is not, an accident
for purposes of triggering coverage.

(1) In boiler and machinery (BM)1 insurance, "accident" is defined within the policy to mean
a sudden and accidental equipment breakdown that causes damage to the equipment that
necessitates repair or replacement. BM coverage applies to loss or damage resulting from an
accident to a covered object.

(2) In liability insurance, particularly older forms, the insuring agreements typically covered
injuries or damages caused by an accident that was not the result of a deliberated intended act
(even if the intended act caused an unexpected result). The term accident was undefined in
such policies. The coverage trigger in the insuring agreement of modern liability policies,
such as the commercial general liability (CGL) policy, applies to an "occurrence," which is
defined to mean an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the
same general harmful conditions.
1
https://www.irmi.com/term/insurance
7|Page

Unlike most other modern liability policies, the commercial auto liability insuring agreement
continues to apply to injuries or damages caused by an "accident." In this case, the policy
includes a definition, of sorts, of the term "accident"—that is, "accident" includes continuous
or repeated exposure to the same conditions resulting in "bodily injury" or "property
damage."

The personal auto policy's (PAP's) liability insuring agreement states that the insurer will pay
damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any insured becomes legally
responsible because of an auto accident. In this type of policy, the term accident is used in its
ordinary sense, without including it as a defined term.

WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS2:

The construction industry often comes to mind when one thinks of on-the-job accidents,
however, every industry has its risks and workers in all professions can become a victim of
an accident. Fortunately, the law is intended to protect injured workers in by requiring all
employers in the State to provide workers’ compensation benefits to employees.
If you have been injured in a workplace accident you may be entitled to workers’
compensation and / or Social Security Disability benefits. However, obtaining the benefits
that you may be owed can be difficult to do and many workers are unable to get the
support that they need.

TYPES OF WORK ACCIDENTS

Below you will see a list of common workplace accidents that occur in New York. While
these are some of the most common accidents, we help all New York workers who have been
injured no matter what type of accident caused the injury.

Office Accidents

Many people think that offices are free from any dangers, however this is not true. In fact,
injuries are often sustained in office environments. Some of the most common types of
workplace accidents and injuries that occur in the office include:

 Trips over wires

 Repetitive motion injuries
2
https://thedisabilityguys.com/types-of-accidents/
8|Page

 Slip and falls

 Muscle strains
 Back injuries

If you work in an office and were injured in the course of work, you have the right to
workers’ compensation.

Slip & Fall Accidents

According to the National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI), slip and fall accidents are the leading
cause of workers’ compensation claims. Additionally, slip and fall accidents are the leading
cause to occupational injury in people aged 55 years or older.

These accidents can happen in any work environment and the injuries sustained can range in
severity. Some of the most common types of injuries suffered in slip and fall accidents
include fractures, sprains, knee injuries and hand or wrist injuries. If you were injured in the
course of work as the result of a slip and fall or other type of accident, you may be entitled to
financial support in the form of workers’ compensation or Social Security disability.

Construction Accidents

Construction sites are inherently dangerous. Heavy equipment, hazardous materials and
elevated heights often cause serious accidents on construction sites.

Some of the most common types of construction accidents that occur include:

 Crane Accidents
 Scaffold Accidents
 Ladder Accidents
 Forklift Accidents
 Building Collapses
 Injuries From Falling Objects

These are only some of the most common types of construction accidents. However, there are
many other types of accidents that can occur on a construction site. If you have been injured
on a construction site you may be entitled to receive workers compensation.
9|Page

ADDITIONAL COMMON WORK ACCIDENTS

Auto Accidents

Distracted driving is the leading cause of auto accidents and any worker on the road is at risk.

What Are The Most Common Ways A Driver Is Distracted?

Accident statistics have shown that the most common causes of distracted driving include:

Cell Phone Use

Talking on the phone, texting, playing games, and taking pictures are all forms of distraction
which can take a person’s eyes off the road long enough for them to drive the length of a
football field in a matter of seconds.

Talking To Passengers

Many people find it rude to not make eye contact when speaking and they naturally do what
they can to make sure that the person they are speaking to knows they are paying attention.
10 | P a g e

But even the slightest of motions with the eye can prevent the driver from seeing an obstacle
in the road.

Other Accidents

People find crashes fascinating and often, a second accident occurs because the driver is too
busy looking at the first accident and doesn’t pay attention to what is going on in front of
them.

Eating / Drinking

It’s tempting to eat when you have little time between destinations but it can be dangerous
due to the fact that it may not only prevent the driver from paying attention but it also
requires the use of their hands.

Grooming

Drivers throughout the country have been seen brushing their hair, applying makeup, and
even getting dressed while driving! Of course, these actions are better done at home.

To try and educate the public about the dangers of driving while distracted, the National
Safety Council has released a free online 45-minute Distracted Driving Course.

However an accident happens, those involved are often seriously injured or killed, causing
not only physical and emotional pain but also resulting in financial stress for both the victim
and their loved ones.

Mining Accidents

Miners work hundreds of feet below the surface with heavy machinery and explosives – a
deadly combination. Miners a six times more likely to be injured on the job than most
professions, but they are just as likely to have their benefits denied.

Hospital Accidents
11 | P a g e

Hospital workers can become victims of many different types of accidents. Workers in the
healthcare industry are not only susceptible to standard accidents such as a slip and fall, but
are also at risk of other types of accidents in the healthcare industry.

For example, nurses and doctors can contract diseases or illnesses from their patients.
Additionally, workers can suffer injuries to the back, neck, knee or hip when manoeuvring a
patient.

Warehouse & Factory Accidents

Warehouse and factory workers are often subject to dangerous working conditions.

Unfortunately, these dangerous working conditions can result in serious accidents and
injuries.

Some of the most common types of accidents and injuries that occur in a warehouse or
factory include:

 Back Injuries
 Repetitive Stress Injuries
 Forklift Accidents
 Lifting Injuries
 Machine Injuries

How Much Can Medical Care Cost?

In the U.S., doctors and researchers are always doing their best to make advances in medicine
so that patients can live longer, healthier, and happier lives. However, for many, obtaining
treatment can be difficult due to the cost of care. Take the following into consideration:

1. The average cost to treat a broken bone ranges from $1500 to $15,000 depending on
which bone is broken and if the patient requires surgery.
2. Traumatic brain injuries can cost a patient between $85,000 and $3 million over their
lifetime.
12 | P a g e

3. Depending on the severity of their injury, patients with damage to their spine can
expect to pay between $42,000 and $1 million for their medical care over their
lifetime.

These are just a few examples and often, the victims of car accidents have more than one
injury which requires treatment. Thankfully, workers’ compensation and Social Security
Disability were created so that injured workers didn’t become financially destitute after being
hurt on the job.

If I’m Involved in A Car Accident While Working, Can I Claim Workers’ Comp?

Yes, if you are working when you are a pedestrian who is hit by a car or are in another
vehicle that was involved in the accident and you sustained an injury, you can claim workers’
compensation.

There may be complications with filing due to the fact that car insurance should also provide
coverage, but in many cases, the coverage provided through car insurance isn’t enough and
the policy limits are met quickly.

ISSUES
13 | P a g e

The impact of a road crash is felt most immediately at the household level. It often has an
instantaneous impact on household activity, significantly affecting the quality of life. Death
of the main income earner, cost of medical treatment, and loss of a job and/or income
resulting from a road crash often have important adverse economic and social consequences
on a household. For instance, studies in Bangladesh3 have demonstrated that road crashes
often push poor households into poverty, a condition from which they have trouble
recovering. Government agencies and WHO officials in the four DMCs agreed that the TA
should focus on the impact at the household level, particularly the impact on low-income and
poverty households as they are the most vulnerable.

OBJECTIVES

1. Estimate the actual incidence of road death and serious injury involving the ‘poor’.

2. Assess the impacts (costs and consequences) of road crashes on poor households

3. Identify whether the ‘poor’ are more at risk or worse affected by road crashes than the non-
poor.

POVERTY & ACCIDENTS

Poor people are more likely to be involved in a road traffic crash. This relationship is a
product of multiple interacting factors:

➤ Poor people are more likely to live in more dangerous areas; for example informal
dwellings near major arterial roads

➤ Poor people in developing countries are more exposed to risks as their transport modes
are more vulnerable – they may be more reliant on walking and cycling as they cannot afford
motorized transport

➤ Often, there is less investment in and provision of road safety in poorer communities.14

● Furthermore, the impact of road traffic injuries and deaths disproportionally affects lower
socioeconomic groups, and can drive families deeper into poverty. Low-income households
are less likely to be able to afford medical and treatment services, and can be denied access to
care because they cannot afford it.15

● Road crashes can push families into poverty, through the costs of prolonged medical care
and treatment, and the potential loss of a family’s income earner or long-term disability.16 17
14 | P a g e

Indeed, any household suffering such a loss may face substantial economic distress, however,
poor families may be particularly vulnerable as they may lack insurance or ability to draw on
savings or to borrow funds.

DISPROPORTIONATE AFFECT OF FATAL CAR ACCIDENTS ON POOR

Areas that are less economically advantaged have more fatal car accidents. Traffic deaths are
steadily declining in more educated and prosperous groups, but for those who have not
graduated from high school, the fatality rate of car accidents is actually increasing. fatality
rate was higher for poor people injured in car accidents for five main reasons:

1. Less education: The researchers found that those who gain the most benefit from
improvements to road safety are those with the most education. This does not mean
that more educated people are better drivers, but that those with less education are
likely to be confronted with many outside situations which increase the danger of road
travel.  This can include things like fatigued driving after working a double shift,
having to walk to work in the dark, or cycling in a dangerous area, just to name a
few. 
2. Fewer financial resources: Poorer people are more likely to drive older model cars
with less safety features, like side airbags, and are also less likely to have the
resources to keeping the car as safe as possible through regular maintenance. Higher
income people have later model cars, with options and safety features such as rear-
view cameras, side airbags, and automatic braking, all of which are designed to help
prevent fatalities if you are in an accident. As technology improves, it is only
available to the wealthy at the beginning, and takes years to trickle down to those with
less resources. 
3. Conduct differences: This is not clear-cut, although some studies show that lower
income people tend to have lower rates of seatbelt use. There is no clear evidence that
alcohol use is higher among lower income people than higher income people. 
4. Lack of hospitals: In disadvantaged communities, especially rural ones, there are not
necessarily emergency rooms on every corner to treat victims of car accidents.  Many
of the hospitals that are found in low income areas provide substandard care, as they
are overwhelmed and underfunded. Not having access to immediate and high-quality
medical care can have a profound impact on the severity of your injury. 
15 | P a g e

5. Less power: Those who live in wealthy neighbourhoods usually benefit from nicely
kept roads, well placed stop signs, and perfectly working street lights, as a result of
having heightened political power. Poor communities, that do not have a lot of power
or the ear of any politicians, suffer from the aging infrastructure and neglect of safety
improvements.  Because of this, roads in poor areas are less safe, and fatalities for
drivers and pedestrians are higher in those neighbourhoods. 
16 | P a g e

INVOLVEMENT OF POOR

The poor reported a higher incidence of road deaths in both urban and rural areas with
significant differences in rural households. The non-poor were found to have higher
involvement rates with serious injuries.

 Only a fraction of serious injuries are recorded by the police.

 The poor reported only 5 (rural) to 11 (urban) serious injuries for every road death,
half the ratios of those reported by the non-poor.
 Two modes dominated road deaths and serious injuries. Pedestrians were the most
common road user mode involved for the poor while the non-poor tended to be
motorcyclists.
 Over half of all killed and seriously injured occurred to the young--middle age
adults. More casualties occurred to those over the age of 45 than to children.
 The vast majority of casualties was reported to have been working full-time.
Although the non-poor were more likely to have skilled or professional employment,
and the poor were more likely to have unskilled jobs, the difference was significant
only with urban deaths.

IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLDS

While the non-poor reported paying more than the poor in medical costs, this was only
significant in the case of urban serious injuries.

 On average, between 4-6 months of schooling was missed by a seriously injured

victim of school age.
 Although the majority of seriously injured were able to return to work, almost half of
the rural non –poor had to find new jobs.
 Majority of poor households had to borrow money after a road death or serious injury.
 Majority of urban bereaved households and almost all households with a serious
injury reported having to give up work or study.
 Very few bereaved or injured had received compensation at the time of the survey.
 Fatal and serious injury crashes had a devastating effect on many households with
71% of urban poor and 53% of rural poor bereaved households estimated to be not
poor before the crash. Among the seriously injured poor households, 17% of urban
and 25% of rural households were not poor before the serious injury.
17 | P a g e

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

In the vast majority of countries, more lives are lost on the road than by murder and the
police will be responsible for investigating more road deaths than other suspicious deaths
(Aeron-Thomas, 2003). As road crashes have traditionally been considered as ‘accidents’,
they have not ranked high in police priorities. To the bereaved family however, there is no
difference in the outcome, i.e. a sudden unnatural and unnecessary death to a loved one. Lack
of confidence in the judicial system results in victims not reporting road crashes to the police
and accepting private out of court settlements which may be timely rather than adequate.
Fatal and serious road traffic crashes need to be investigated properly, with culpable drivers
prosecuted for the community to believe life is not cheaper on the road.

CASE LAW

NAME OF THE CASE: Salman Salim Khan v. State of Maharashtra

CITATION: CR APEAL-572-2015

SIGNIFICANCE:
This case signifies how poor people are being affected in the cases of hit and run and under
which provisions they are compensated for their loss but in the instant case certain questions
were remain unanswered The objective of the instant case is to compensate the victim who
have suffered loss due to accidents and how these accidents have more impact on the poor.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

It is the case of prosecution that the present appellant, a famous film star of Hindi cinemas
drove the motor vehicle Toyota Land Cruiser (Registration No.MH 01-DA-32) (hereinafter
referred to as "the said car".) He drove the said car on the night between 27.9.2002 and
28.9.2002. Specifically it is the case of the prosecution that at early hours of 28.9.2002, he
drove the said car in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and that time he was under
the influence of alcohol. It is the case of prosecution that on the night of 27.9.2002 at about
9:30 p.m. or so the appellant took out the said car. 3 He was accompanied by his friend one
Kamal Khan (not examined in the present matter) and his police bodyguard one Ravindra
Himmatrao Patil (since deceased).

3
https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-salman-khan2002-hit-run-case/
18 | P a g e

According to the case of prosecution the appellant/accused was driving the said car from his
house at Galaxy Apartments Bandra and firstly visited Rain Bar. In the Rain Bar the appellant
and his friend Kamal Khan went inside and his bodyguard Ravindra Patil remained outside. It
is also the case of prosecution that brother of the appellant one Sohail Khan also visited Rain
Bar at the relevant time and the bodyguard of Sohail Khan was present outside the Rain Bar.
Name of said bodyguard of Sohail Khan is Balu Laxman Muthe (PW-6).

It is the prosecution's case that at Rain Bar various eatables and drinks were served to the
appellant and his friend and others. This service was given by one waiter by name Malay Bag
(PW-5), who was then on duty at Rain Bar. After consuming the food and drinks which
included alcohol (Bacardi), a White Rum and some cocktails, the appellant and his friend left
Rain Bar and then visited hotel JW Marriott.

Again according to the case of prosecution the appellant/accused was driving the said car and
his bodyguard Ravindra Patil sat by the side of driver's seat in the front and the friend Kamal
Khan sat at the rear seat. At hotel JW Marriott the appellant/accused and his friend went
inside and again Ravindra Patil remained outside. According to the case of prosecution at
about 2:15 a.m. or so on 28.9.2002 the appellant and his friend Kamal Khan came out of
hotel JW Marriott.

Again the appellant sat on the driver seat and his bodyguard Ravindra Patil sat by his side on
the front seat and Kamal Khan sat at the rear and they started coming back to the house of the
appellant via St. Andrews Road and Hill Road. It is also specific case of the prosecution that
at that time the appellant was under the influence of alcohol and was driving the car at very
high speed of about 90 to 100 km. per hour.

Ravindra Patil, the bodyguard, cautioned him to lower down the speed but the appellant did
not pay any heed. Consequently the appellant lost his control over the car while negotiating
the right turn at the junction of St. Andrews Road and Hill Road. The appellant dashed the
said car on the shutters of American Laundry which is situated at the junction. Said impact
resulted in the death of one person by name Nurulla and injuries to four persons who are PW-
2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-11. The deceased and the injured were sleeping on the platform in
front of American Laundry.
19 | P a g e

Due to the impact there was a loud noise and there was a sort of commotion that followed.
Many people gathered on the spot after hearing the noise and they saw the appellant coming
out from the car. They also saw that few persons were below the car and apparently under the
tyre. They noticed that one person was seriously injured and he subsequently died and four
persons sustained injuries. Out of them two persons received grievous injuries and two
persons received simple injuries.

It is also the case of prosecution that the mob which was gathered on the spot after the
incident was rather furious and apparently there was manhandling of the inmates of the car
including Ravindra Patil, police bodyguard of the appellant. Said bodyguard sensing the
seriousness of the situation showed his police identity card and proclaimed that he was a
police officer. As such, he pacified the people who had gathered there who were angry and
aggressive. It is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant and his friend Kamal Khan
ran away from the spot without giving any help to the persons involved in the incident.

PLEA OF DEFENDANTS:

(a) Firstly, that the appellant was not driving the vehicle;

(b) Secondly, he was not drunk and was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of
incident; and

(c) Thirdly, it was pure and simple accident as left side front tyre of the car burst thus the car
was beyond the control of the driver and met with an accident.

Apart from the above three broad propositions, it is also argued that there is incorrect
application of penal section 304 Part II of IPC and also that the evidence before M.M.
Court of one Ravindra Patil (since deceased) should not have been taken help of by the
Sessions Court under Section 33 of the Evidence Act.4 It was so argued on the factual
position that the evidence of Ravindra Patil was recorded before the Metropolitan
Magistrate when the main charge was under Section 304A of IPC and before the Sessions
Court the main charge was for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and by the
time the matter reached the Sessions Court or even much 35 / 305 36 CR APEAL-572-

4
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/salman-khan-hit-and-run-
all-that-happened-that-night/Salman-Khan-hit-and-run-case-All-that-happened-that-
night/photostory/47188331.cms
20 | P a g e

2015-JUDGMENT.doc earlier in the year 2007 said Ravindra Patil died and was not
available for cross-examination before the Sessions Court. His evidence recorded before
the Metropolitan Magistrate was accepted as a substantive evidence under Section 33 of
the Evidence Act.

ARGUMENTS:

The argument on behalf of the State by learned Public Prosecutor on three main defences
raised on behalf of the appellant i.e. who was driving, secondly whether the appellant/accused
was under the influence of alcohol and thirdly whether it was a pure and simple accident. It is
also much argued on behalf of the prosecution that the recourse to Section 33 of the Evidence
Act was rightly taken by the Sessions Court while accepting the testimony of Ravindra Patil
which was recorded in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and it is further canvassed that the
questions which arise were substantially the same before the proceeding at Metropolitan
Magistrate Court level and in the Sessions Case. 5 This is so argued on the applicability
of Section 33 of the Evidence Act still in the light of the factual position that before the
Metropolitan Magistrate Court the main charge was under Section 304A of IPC and the main
charge before the Sessions Court was under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

WITNESSES ON THE POINT THAT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED WAS

DRIVING THE CAR / COMING OUT OF THE CAR:

Apart from the above, it is also argued on behalf of the State that the theory of left side front
door of the car was in jammed condition and therefore could not be opened during the
incident, cannot be accepted. Moreover, it is submitted that also the theory of bursting of the
left side front tyre prior to the incident is also required to be discarded more so in view of the
report of the RTO Inspector (Exh.84). It is also submitted that the speed of the car was 90-
100 kms per hour as stated by Ravindra Patil in his evidence before the Metropolitan
Magistrate Court.

During the arguments, learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the theory of the
appellant that one Ashok Singh was driving the vehicle can be negated in view of absence of
any such case put to any of the prosecution witnesses and more so when PW-7 Fransis
Fernandez does not mention regarding the presence of Ashok Singh on the spot.

5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148691067/
21 | P a g e

The defence evidence of DW-1 Ashok Singh was also assailed by the prosecution on various
aspects more particularly that DW-1 does not mention at which spot the left side front tyre of
the car burst when the car was on the Hill Road. Also DW-1 did not mention at what time he
reached JW Marriott hotel to relieve the earlier driver one Mr. Altaf. Also much is argued on
the conduct of said DW-1 in not explaining to anybody either to media or to the police or
even to the Court during the course of the trial that he was driving the vehicle and not the
appellant/accused.

WITNESSES ON THE ASPECT OF CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY

THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED
On this aspect of drunkenness of the appellant, according to the prosecution, their other
important witness is Ravindra Patil, the bodyguard of 39 / 305 40 CR APEAL-572-2015-
JUDGMENT.doc the appellant. According to the prosecution, apart from the point of
appellant driving the car, this witness is also on the point of consumption of alcohol by the
appellant. According to this witness in his substantive evidence before the Metropolitan
Magistrate Court he has stated that the appellant/accused was under the influence of alcohol.

WITNESSES ON SPEED OF THE CAR AND ROUTE TAKEN BY IT TILL

REACHING THE SPOT OF INCIDENT:

The speed of the car is also one of the significant factors in the present case. So also the route
taken by the vehicle is also a significant factor. Ravindra Patil is the prosecution witness who
mentioned that the car was being driven at the speed of 90-100 km per hour. The factual
position is that there were no break marks on the spot and there is no mention in the spot
panchnama to that effect. The damage to the car is also not so extensive as it is apparent from
the vehicle inspection report (Exh.84) prepared by RTO Inspector PW-19 Rajendra Keskar so
as to establish that the impact happened at 90-100 km/ph.

So far as the route taken by the car, it is an admitted position and substantiated by the
evidence of Investigating Officer and mainly PW-27 Mr. Shengal i.e. the FIR at two places
the route by which the car was driven is mentioned as from "St. Andrews Road"

to "Hill Road". However, it is also an admitted position that the initial words were "Manuel
Gonsalves" and these words are cancelled by slanting marks and above these words "St.
Andrews" is written. It is significant that though this factual position is admitted by PW-27
22 | P a g e

there is no explanation as to why this alteration was made though it was the defence that the
vehicle took the route via Manuel Gonsalves road and the vehicle came to the Hill Road by
taking right turn from Manuel Gonsalves road and not from St. Andrews Road.

During the arguments, learned Public Prosecutor for the State stated that these witnesses do
not talk of four persons travelling in the car or coming out of the car after the incident. The
learned Chief Prosecutor wanted to suggest that non mentioning by these witnesses about
four persons is required to be taken as a mitigating circumstance to the defence of the
accused. However, a distinction is required to be drawn between said witnesses remaining
silent about a particular fact and the said witnesses specifically answering something that
they did not notice four persons but only noticed three persons. These are two different
things. Remaining silent may have two implications, either he has seen but has not told or
secondly that he had not seen at all. When a witness answers that he did not see four persons,
then there is more positive effect that the witness has seen only three persons and only three
were travelling. In any way, these witnesses remaining silent about how many persons were
travelling in the car, cannot be taken as a mitigating circumstance to the defence of the
accused as argued on behalf of the State. For that purposes the other material evidence is
required to be dealt with appropriately. Of course, it is a factual position that these witnesses
are also silent as to what the police guard i.e. Ravindra Patil and also Kamal Khan were doing
during the incident. If they are silent on these two persons and if the argument of the State is
to be accepted then it must be said that these two persons were also not on the spot. However,
the case of the prosecution is contrary to this and admitted even by the accused that the police
guard Ravindra Patil and also Kamal Khan were the persons travelling in the car since 9:30
p.m. on 27.9.2002 up to the incident of 28.9.2002.

INTERPRETATION OF THE COURT:

Though it is not established that the appellant-accused was driving the vehicle still he comes
under the later part as 'a person in-charge of the vehicle' and as per the explanation to the said
section, 'driver' includes the owner of the vehicle. Now the question arises whether the
circumstances on the spot were such that the act of the appellant-accused in leaving the spot
without apparently giving any medical assistance or to take reasonable steps to secure the
medical aid to the injured. On this aspect, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that after
the incident a mob of many people had gathered and the mob was in aggressive mood and
some of the members were also armed with rods and other articles. Even according to the
23 | P a g e

witnesses and also the injured who had been on the spot, the mob was furious and in fact
there could have been a law and order problem and it in fact happened as the mob had spotted
the appellant-accused coming out of the vehicle and the vehicle had caused death of one
person and injuries to other four persons. As such considering this argument and the factual
position that the circumstances were such that in order to escape from the fury of the mob and
these circumstances were beyond the control of the appellant, no such appropriate steps were
taken to secure the medical aid to the injured persons.

Of course, on this aspect, it is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that if not immediately
after the incident but subsequently also there is no step taken by the appellant to see what is
the condition of the injured and whether they require any medical help. In fact, the law
requires as mandated by section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act that such aid is required to be
given by the driver and also the other persons in-charge of the vehicle when any person is
injured or any property of a third party is damaged as a result of the accident in which motor
vehicle is involved. So this presupposes that such assistance is immediately given at the time
of the incident and in near proximity in time. As such, in the considered view of this Court,
even this charge under section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be attracted in the
present case considering the circumstances.

. Now, in summing up, it must be mentioned that on the main broad aspects as to the driving
and drunkenness the prosecution has not brought that material on record to point out only the
guilt of the appellant-accused as almost entire evidence of the prosecution is in the nature of
circumstantial evidence though the evidence of Ravindra Patil can be considered as a
evidence of a direct nature, still this Court has earlier held as to its inadmissibility and has
subsequently also marshalled his evidence as to his evidential value.

JUDGEMENT:
The Bombay HC gave the judgment on 10th December 2015. The Court completely
disregarding the evidence given by the eyewitness Ravindra Patil and came to the conclusion
that the prosecution could not prove the actor’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It could not
prove that the actor was under the influence of alcohol or was driving. Justice Joshi further
said, “it is unnatural on the part of the conduct of Patil to say so many things that he has not
said in the FIR, there has been a material improvement on drunkenness and asking Salman to
drive slowly… it is more strange from the witness.” The judge also said that Ashok Singh
was Salim Khan’s driver and not Salman’s who was interrogated by inspector Kishan
24 | P a g e

Senghal who said that his statement was not recorded. However, the Court did not accept
Singh’s version that was driving and not the actor. The trial court had noted that Singh had
appeared after 13 years of the incident to the court.

The Court also did not accept the fact that the tyre burst and said that the prosecution has not
been able to prove the fact that the tyre burst either before the accident or after the accident.
According to Justice Joshi in the case, “On the basis of the evidence produced by the
prosecution, the appellant cannot be convicted, no matter how differently the common man
thinks.”

Criminal Appeal preferred by appellant Salman Salim Khan is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 6th May, 2015 passed in Sessions Case is hereby quashed and set
aside. The appellant-accused Salman Salim Khan is acquitted of all the charges. The bail
bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. If the fine amounts which are imposed in view of
the impugned judgment and order, are already paid, the same shall be refunded back to him.
In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., the appellant shall execute a P.R. bond
in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with one or two sureties in the
like amount. On the request on behalf of the appellant-accused provisionally a cash security
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), shall be accepted by the office for a
period of two weeks and within this time the surety procedure shall be completed. The bail
procedure be complied before the office of this Court. As the bail bonds of the appellant-
accused stand cancelled, which were given at the time of admission of the appeal, Bandra
Police Station is directed to hand over the Passport of the appellant to him on proper
identification. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

CONCLUSION OF THE CASE:

We all know what happened that night and who was behind the wheel. But as the judgment
has been in favour of the actor, the victims feel helpless. They demand justice and
compensation from the actor. Most of them are permanently injured and cannot work now.
They feel that if the Government is not going to help them, then who will? “If the
Government couldn’t do anything, what will they do?” they say. They have waited long for
justice. They say “if the Court had to acquit him they could have done it long time back”. It is
the duty of the state to protect its people.
25 | P a g e

CONCLUSION:

Road crashes are increasing rapidly in most developing countries of Asia. A World Health
Organization (WHO) analysis indicates that about 500,000 people are killed in road crashes
in Asia each year.1 Thus, Asia produces approximately 44% of the world’s road deaths,
despite having only 16% of the vehicle fleet. Fatality rates are excessive, frequently
exceeding by 20–30 times those recorded in the countries of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trend data shows that the number of people killed
annually in road crashes in Asia continues to increase, while OECD countries have seen a
steady decline. Moreover, the experience in OECD countries suggests that many road
accidents are preventable.

With rapid motorization in Asia, road safety has become a significant sector issue. Despite
efforts in some countries to address the road safety problem, information and data on the
adverse impacts of road crashes are scarce. Crash statistics in most developing member
countries (DMCs) are poor, and often significantly underreport the number of deaths and
injuries. However, available data indicates that the majority of crashes involve pedestrians in
rural areas. The poor face significantly higher risks of being involved in road accidents
because they tend to live and work adjacent to roads and form the bulk of pedestrians. Many
are heads of households, and their deaths often significantly reduce family incomes. Serious
injuries have also long-term impacts on household incomes for low-income households, and
can have serious consequences on the household quality of life. While road crashes and
poverty appear to be strongly linked, little empirical evidence is available on the
socioeconomic impact of road crashes. To investigate the relationship between road crashes
and poverty, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development agreed in
January 2004 to include this study under the Poverty Reduction Cooperation Fund (PRF).2
Following an agreement that the study should examine different countries where road safety
was a serious problem, four DMCs were selected—India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Viet Nam.
The Fact-Finding Mission was fielded in December 2004 to discuss the objectives of the
regional technical assistance (TA), and to confirm the scope of work, cost estimates, and
implementation arrangements.

In the four DMCs, the key agencies concerned with road safety agreed that crashes were
increasing on their road networks. In many cases, the agencies considered crashes a
significant threat to life and injury for the local population. Expanding motorization is
26 | P a g e

increasing the risk of accidents significantly, particularly since a high percentage of vehicle
fleets comprise two-wheeled vehicles. In addition, each DMC has a large proportion of
vulnerable road users, as nonmotorized vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians compete for road
space with motorized vehicles. In many urban areas, markets and other economic and social
activities also vie for road space. In rural areas, roads are frequently used for purposes other
than transportation. The combination of these factors has increased the overall risk of road
crashes significantly, and this situation is likely to continue unless steps are taken to mitigate
the risks. However, policy makers do not have adequate knowledge of the impact of road
crashes to implement successful countermeasures due to the absence of a proper assessment
of the risks and identification of the incidence of deaths and injuries.