How the recent Porsche car incident that killed two people in Pune is similar to Salman Khan’s 2002 hit-and-run case

In the recent Porsche acccident that happened in Pune that led to the killing of two people has become hot topic of discussion. Talking about the case to the publication Free Press Journal, special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat who secured Salman Khan’s conviction talked about vicarious liability.

Gharat said- ‘Section 199A of the Motor Vehicle Act reads: “Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile, the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.’

He added, “Under the new amended Act the guardian is made independently liable for the offence. Therefore the ingredient of the offence that the car of the guardian’s hands been used by the minor for the commission of the offence, immediately the guardian becomes liable… so the arrest of the father of the minor can be explained.”

More from Entertainment

'Jugnuma' Movie Review: Manoj Bajpayee-Deepak Dobriyal’s terrific performances stood out in this beautifully restrained way of storytelling 'Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale' Movie Review: The final goodbye of Julian Fellowes’s beloved British soap

While acquitting Bollywood actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case, the Bombay High Court also absolved him from charge of leaving the accident spot without providing aid to the victims; this was in 2015.

According to the prosecution, Khan fled from the spot after his SUV ran over people sleeping on footpath in suburban Bandra, killing one person and injuring four, on 28 September, 2002.

A mob had gathered after the accident and the situation led the actor to leave the place, said Justice AR Joshi in the judgement, a copy of which became available too.

“Though this court has held that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant-accused (Salman) was driving the vehicle during the incident, still it is a factual position that he was present in the vehicle and this position cannot be negated. As such, the import of Section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act is required to be construed,” the court said.

Under Section 134, not only the driver but every person in charge of a vehicle which is involved in an accident is duty-bound to give medical assistance to the victims.

“Considering this argument (that people armed with sticks, rods, etc., had gathered) and the factual position that the circumstances were such that in order to escape from the fury of 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,” the judge said.