E-Paper
Pune Porsche crash: Accused to be treated as minor, Juvenile Justice Board rules
A Porsche allegedly driven by the teenager in an inebriated state fatally knocked down two IT professionals in May last year.
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on Tuesday ruled that the teenager involved in the Porsche crash case will be treated as a minor, PTI reported.
The defence counsel in the case said that the court rejected Pune police's plea to treat him as an adult.
A Porsche allegedly driven by the teenager, 17, in an inebriated state, fatally knocked down two IT professionals — Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, who were on a two-wheeler in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar in the early hours of May 19 last year.
After arrest, the accused teenager was enlarged on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board on the condition that he was to write a 300-word essay on road safety. This led to public outcry, revisiting of the case by police and sending the teenager to an observation home. The Bombay high court later ordered his release.
Also Read | Pune Porsche crash: Year after kin question delay in promised fast-track trial
The teenager’s mother was arrested in June last year after she was accused of attempting to shield her son by swapping her blood sample with his to conceal alcohol consumption at the time of the accident and paid ₹3 lakh for the same. The Supreme Court granted her interim bail in April.
What the prosecutor and defence argued
During the hearing in the case, Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray argued that the 17-year-old, referred to as Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), was driving under the influence of alcohol and has been booked under Indian Penal Code (IPS) 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,” Hiray had told the board.
Also Read | Pune Porsche case doctor held in kidney racket
Defence lawyer Prashant Patil, however, had opposed the plea, stating that the JJ Act was intended for rehabilitation and reform. He cited a Supreme Court judgment to argue that the charges do not necessarily qualify as ‘heinous’ under the Act. “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.
