Abuse of Process of Law by Police: Arrest of SUV Owner (The Case of UPSC Aspirants' Drowning in Delhi)

Introduction

The tragic drowning of three UPSC aspirants in Delhi has deeply affected the community and raised serious concerns about the police's handling of the case. On 27th July 2024, these young individuals, dedicated to preparing for a prestigious exam, lost their lives when the high speed of the SUV car caused water to surge into the basement of Rau's IAS coaching centre in Old Rajinder Nagar.

Following the incident, allegations of police misconduct have surfaced, suggesting a potential abuse of the legal process, compromising justice and fairness. This analysis aims to examine the incident and the police response, discussing the implications of these alleged abuses and the legal options available to ensure justice for the victims and their families.

Facts

• Incident: Three UPSC aspirants drowned after the basement of Rau’s IAS Study Circle in Old Rajinder Nagar flooded.
• Cause of Flooding: Heavy rainfall and the high speed of an SUV caused water to surge into the basement.
• Victims: Shreya Yadav from Ambedkar Nagar, Tanya Soni from Telangana, and Navin Dalwin from Ernakulam, all aged between 25 and 30 years.

Issue

1. Arrest of SUV Driver under Section 105 and 115(2) of BNS
2. Premature Arrest
3. Investigation Integrity
4. Media Influence

Alleged Laws and Their Elements in the Case

Section 105: Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

• Key Points:Intention to Cause Death or Serious InjuryKnowledge of Likely Death
• Ingredients:Act Done with IntentionAct Done with KnowledgeResulting DeathPunishment: Imprisonment for life, or a term between five and ten years, along with a fine.

Section 115(2): Voluntarily Causing Hurt

• Key Points:Intentional HarmExclusionPunishment: Imprisonment for up to one year, a fine up to ₹10,000, or both.
• Ingredients:Voluntary ActHurt DefinedException ExclusionPenalty

In this case, the accused was alleged under these sections despite having no knowledge or intention to harm anyone. The arrest and subsequent charges might have been influenced by media pressure rather than concrete evidence.

Analysis

The police's decision to arrest the SUV driver under Section 105 and Section 115(2) of the IPC has been met with controversy, suggesting potential misuse of the legal process.

• Lack of Intent and Knowledge: The driver did not have the intention or knowledge to cause harm, a key element required under both Section 105 and Section 115(2).
• Media Pressure: The initial police response may have been influenced by public and media pressure, leading to hasty legal action.
• Investigation Flaws: The modification of charges, including the removal of Section 105, indicates a lack of concrete evidence.
• Potential Negligence: The prosecution may argue that the driver acted recklessly by driving at high speed in a flooded area, indirectly contributing to the accident.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's decision to revise the effective cancellation date of the SUV owner's GST registration underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for taxpayers to stay informed about ongoing proceedings. This decision highlights significant flaws in the police's initial response and emphasizes the need for a fair and thorough investigation to uphold justice for the victims and the accused.