Police’s pro-Vikash FIR raises questions

In the FIR, police have not evoked Section IPC 304 Part II. The main section under which it is filed is IPC 308, which dilutes the charges as an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. City traffic police had evoked Section 304 (II) in the Aishwarya case, where she had caused death of a labourer near Tidel Park after crashing her Audi. However, Adyar traffic investigation has termed the accident only as an ‘attempt’ to culpable homicide. 

Though police have evoked Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, accusing the offender of drunken driving, they have refused to add 304(II), though the accident had claimed the life of Arumugham and orphaned his 7-year-old child. The FIR number 610/2016 has evoked IPC Sections 308, 109, 114, Section 3 (1) TN Public Property (prevention of damage and loss) Act 1992 and Sections 184, 185 and 188 of Motor Vehicles Act. 

The FIR also makes no mention of the death of Arumugham in the accident. Sources told DTNext that police will include death only while filing the chargesheet as they have to attach the death certificate. When contacted, Assistant Commissioner, Traffic Investigation, East told this paper that he needs to check the FIR before commenting. “Section 304 should be there. Let me check the FIR,” he said. Repeated efforts to reach the official later turned futile. “In such fatal accident cases the ideal section to be evoked is 304 (II). But it is hardly used by our policemen as there are some legal complications with that Section,” Advocate V S Suresh, who handles traffic accident cases said.