 "The Porsche car that was allegedly driven by a 17-year-old boy who knocked down two motorbike riders on May 19, 2024, causing their death in Kalyani Nagar of Pune city. File Photo/PTI")
The minor accused in the Porsche car crash in Pune last May that killed two people will not be tried as an adult, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) said on Tuesday (July 15). The teenager, who was 17 years old at the time of the accident, will face trial as a juvenile.
Software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both aged 24, were killed by the speeding Porsche, allegedly driven by the accused minor in an inebriated state. The duo was on a motorcycle around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024, when the incident took place.
The case had created a national uproar over its handling by the authorities.
Let’s take a closer look.
Pune Porsche crash case
The main accused was driving his father’s Rs 2.5 crore Porsche last May when he allegedly hit the bike of the two IT professionals , both hailing from Madhya Pradesh, in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar.
As per reports, the teenager, the son of a prominent Pune businessman, was out partying, “celebrating” exam results. He was allegedly drunk at the time of the accident.
An FIR was lodged against the minor on the same day at the Yerwada police station. He was detained on May 19, 2024 and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.
The case stirred widespread outrage after the JJB granted bail to the minor on the conditions that he would “write an essay of 300 words” on “topic in effect of road accidents and their solutions”, help RTO officers and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days.
After the backlash, the accused was sent to an observation home on May 22, 2024. However, in June, the Bombay High Court ordered the minor’s release and directed that he be sent into the care of his paternal aunt, who had moved a plea for his release.
The local police had also come under scrutiny for allegedly mishandling crucial evidence to ensure the teenager’s release.
As per a police probe, the blood samples of the accused were replaced with his mother’s at the government-run Sassoon Hospital to conceal that he was allegedly drunk at the time of the accident. The mother was arrested for tampering with evidence, but was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in April this year.
The boy’s father , doctors Ajay Taware and Shrihari Halnor, hospital employee Atul Ghatkamble, and two middlemen are in prison in connection with the case.
Minor won’t be tried as an adult
Last year, the Pune police submitted applications before the Juvenile Justice Board to try the main accused – the child in conflict with law (CCL) – as an adult.
The special prosecution argued that the teenager was booked under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 467 (forgery) for alleged tampering of blood samples.
“Both offences are punishable by over 10 years and are categorised as heinous under the Juvenile Justice Act. The CCL knows the consequences and must face trial as an adult,” Special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray told the board.
“The child in conflict with law (CCL) knew very well the consequences of these offences. Police have evidence in the form of CCTV footage from the two pubs where the teenager partied with his friends and also witness statements that support the theory he had consumed alcohol and was driving the car under the influence of alcohol,” he submitted.
“The CCL’s family driver too has recorded the statement that the teenager did not pay heed to his advice against driving the vehicle in an inebriated condition,” Hiray said.
However, defence lawyer Prashant Patil opposed the prosecutor’s application for the accused to be tried as an adult. He argued that the offence cannot be legally termed “heinous”. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, Patil submitted before the board that the object of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act is “reformative” and not “punitive”.
“The board must consider the child’s potential for reform. Trying him as an adult would go against the spirit of juvenile justice,” he said.
Now, the JJB has rejected the Pune City Police’s request for the accused teenager to be tried as an adult.
What do India’s laws say?
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015), which replaced the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, provides that minors in the age group of 16-18 be tried as adults in cases of heinous offences.
It is a crime for which the minimum punishment is seven years in jail.
Section 15 of the JJ Act states that the Juvenile Justice Board is required to “conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence”, before determining whether the accused child needs to be tried as an adult.
According to Section 18 (3) of the Act, if the Board orders that there is a need for the trial of the child as an adult, then it can transfer the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction over such crimes.
Before the 2015 amendment to the act, all children below the age of 18 years were treated as juveniles.
India’s legal drinking age differs across states, ranging from 18 to 25 years. Some states, such as Bihar, Nagaland, Gujarat and Manipur, have completely banned alcohol.
For minors, no amount of alcohol in the blood while driving is considered legal. If they commit an offence, their guardian or the owner of the vehicle they were driving will face legal consequences.
They can be imprisoned for up to three years and have to pay a fine of Rs 25,000. The registration of the vehicle involved will be cancelled for 12 months. If the minor has a driving licence, it will be suspended and not granted till they are 25 years old.
In the case of adults, private vehicle owners can have a legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit of 30mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. This limit is zero for commercial vehicle drivers.
As per the law, if drink driving by an adult leads to injury to another person, the offender can be jailed for up to two years. If the other person dies, the driver may face imprisonment for two to seven years and a hefty fine.
With inputs from agencies