Signing you in

Listen 00:00 0.5x 0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x AI Narration This audio is AI generated.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a parent who knowingly hands over a motor vehicle to a minor child can be prosecuted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the child causes a fatal accident.

Refusing to scrap charges against Nadeem Ur Rehman, 51, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in an October 16 order that giving a vehicle to a 14-year-old carries the inherent knowledge of potential fatal consequences.

The court said, “The law prohibits minors from driving not as an empty ritual of regulation, but because a motor vehicle, when entrusted to untrained and legally incompetent hands, is capable of becoming an instrument of grave peril. Parents and guardians who permit such adventures cannot treat the statutory prohibition as a matter of convenience and thereafter seek complete insulation from criminal consequences when the foreseeable peril turns into catastrophe.”

It added, “The steering wheel of a motor vehicle cannot become a plaything in the hands of a child, nor can a public road become the playground for such indulgence.”

Rehman’s counsel argued that the minor took the car without consent and that the act at most amounted to rashness or negligence, not culpable homicide. However, Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha opposed the plea, presenting witness statements from the charge sheet showing Rehman consciously handed over the keys and had done so previously.

The court ruled that these statements constitute prima facie material that cannot be dismissed at the discharge stage.

“The chargesheet material contains statements indicating that the petitioner himself handed over the keys to his minor son and that this was not an isolated occurrence but had allegedly happened on earlier occasions as well. Whether those statements are ultimately worthy of acceptance is a matter of evidence; at the stage of discharge, they cannot be wished away by accepting the defence version as established fact.”

“The message of the law must equally be unambiguous. A parent who knowingly places the steering wheel in the hands of a child cannot always retreat behind the minority of that child, when the adventure ends in catastrophe. Parenthood carries not merely affection and authority, but responsibility.”

Further, the court in the order said, “Roads are shared public spaces, not training grounds for unlawful indulgence. When parental indulgence knowingly permits a child incapable in law of driving to command a machine capable of causing death, and precious lives are consequently lost, the law is entitled to inquire, upon evidence, whether the conduct was merely negligent or had crossed the frontier into culpable knowledge.”

Justice Nagaprasanna said that parenthood carries responsibility alongside affection, and parents cannot shield themselves behind a child’s minor status when permissiveness ends in irreversible tragedy on public roads.