Bandra Crash Case Sparks Legal Debate Over Section 105 of BNS
The invocation of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against nutritionist Megha Rawal, who ran over an 8-year-old boy in Bandra, has triggered a debate among legal experts over whether speaking on a mobile phone while speeding amounts to legal knowledge of likely causing death.
Section 105, which covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder, is a non-bailable offence triable exclusively by a sessions court and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. The section is typically reserved for cases of extreme recklessness, such as drunk driving, because it requires prosecutors to prove that the accused acted with knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death.
By contrast, road crash fatalities caused by distraction or error are usually prosecuted under Section 106 of the BNS for rash or negligent acts without intention or knowledge. General negligence under Section 106(1) is bailable and triable by a magistrate, whereas hit-and-run incidents under Section 106(2) are non-bailable.
Advocate Ashwin Thool noted that the threshold of knowledge under Section 105 is difficult to establish in cases involving mobile phone distraction compared to drunk driving. While alcohol clearly impairs faculties, Thool said phone calls are distractions and applying the standard of knowledge remains legally debatable. Other circumstances, such as road speed limits, crowd density, and whether the child crossed outside a designated crossing, would be critical factors.
Advocate Ayaz Khan stated that the prosecution's case will rely heavily on forensic and circumstantial evidence, including skid marks to establish speed and proof regarding whether the phone call was handheld or made through an in-car system.
Both Khan and Thool highlighted that Rawal took the child to the hospital, describing the action as a mitigating factor demonstrating conduct that courts typically view in favour of the accused.
Conversely, advocate Pradip Gharat argued that Section 105 is applicable because drivers are aware their attention is diverted when speaking on a phone. Driving while distracted or speeding on a busy road with awareness of the potential risks satisfies the attribution of knowledge, Gharat said.
