Pune teen in Porsche crash won’t be tried as adult: What transpired in court
Juvenile Justice Board rejects police plea, stating that offences for which the teen has been booked do not qualify as 'heinous' crimes
The Pune teen, accused of fatally knocking down two motorcycle-borne IT professionals with his father’s Porsche last year, was spared of being tried in the case as an adult after the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on Tuesday (July 16) rejected Pune city police application in this regard, while stating that the offences do not qualify as a “heinous” crime.
The crime
The prime accused, son of a well-known real estate developer, allegedly drove the luxury car in Kalyani Nagar area of Pune in an inebriated state and fatally rammed it into two motorcycle-borne IT professionals, Anish Awadhiya and Ashwini Costa, in May last year. The incident had sparked nationwide outrage.
Also read: Pune Porsche crash: SC grants interim bail to mother of accused teen
He was booked under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), and has also been charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Pune Police’s petition
Citing sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Pune city police had filed an application before the Board, seeking that the child in conflict with law (CCL) be tried as an adult in this case.
The police argued he committed a heinous act, as not only were two persons crushed to death but there were also attempts to tamper with the evidence.
What juvenile board said
After hearing the arguments of the defence and prosecution on Tuesday, the board, as reported by NDTV, concluded that none of the charges under which the teenager has been booked fulfil the criteria to call the crimes “heinous” offences under the Juvenile Justice Act while declaring that “…the preliminary assessment under Section 15 – for declaring the child to be tried as an adult – is not maintainable.”
Also read: Pune Porsche crash case: Two members of Juvenile Justice Board sacked
The defence counsel had argued that the charges the teenager faces do not attract a minimum jail term of seven years or more, which is mandatory for a crime to be defined as “heinous”.
Defence cites SC judgement
Defence counsel Prashant Patil told PTI that he opposed the prosecution's demand to treat the teenager as an adult, by citing some case laws.
"We had cited a Supreme Court judgement – Shilpa Mittal Vs State in which the Supreme Court has defined what constitutes a heinous crime. The guidelines decided by the Supreme Court are binding on everyone. However, the plea by the prosecution is contrary to the apex court's judgement. We demanded that since the plea is contrary to the Supreme Court guidelines, it is not maintainable," Patil said.
What is a heinous crime?
To define a certain crime as heinous, the prosecution must have a section (invoked in the case) in which minimum punishment is seven years, he said.
"In the present case, there is not a single section that has a minimum punishment of seven years. So, we argued that the prosecution’s plea is not maintainable," he said.
Also read: Pune Porsche crash: Car was carrying 3 minors besides teen driver, not 2
“The Board’s preliminary assessment did not determine that the boy should be treated as an adult," he told PTI.
Prosecution’s arguments
"For the last two months, both prosecution and defence presented their arguments (on the police plea). After hearing both sides, the Juvenile Justice Board today (Tuesday) rejected the Pune police's plea, stating the offence does not qualify as a heinous crime," said advocate Shishir Hiray, the special public prosecutor (SPP) in the case.
Certain provisions in the Juvenile Justice Act warranted a broader public debate, he noted.
"The Supreme Court has already ruled on these provisions, but a wider deliberation is essential. There appear to be loopholes in the existing law. Collective efforts are needed to address these shortcomings, particularly regarding the age definition of a juvenile. As a lawyer and a responsible member of society, I see it as my duty to highlight these flaws, and I will continue to do so," Hiray said.
Also read: Pune crash: Teen admitted to being drunk, mother tampered with blood sample, court told
Hiray, during his argument in the court, had pointed to the gruesome nature of the incident as the accused in an inebriated condition, drove the car at nearly 180 km per hour before knocking down the two motorcyclists. He also argued that his family was well aware of the consequences of the crime and hence tried to influence the police and tampered with evidence.
"In this case, the accused, including the boy's parents and doctors, attempted to manipulate the judicial process by swapping the teenager's blood samples (post crash). The integrity of the justice system was shaken," he argued.
Outrage over lenient bail terms
The teenager got bail hours after the horrific accident. The lenient bail terms, including asking him to write a 300-word essay on road safety, triggered a nationwide firestorm, following which he was sent to an observation home in Pune.
On June 25 last year, the Bombay High Court directed that the boy be released immediately, saying the Board's orders remanding him to an observation home were illegal and the law regarding juveniles must be implemented fully.
Arguments have been underway for framing charges against 10 other accused, including the teenager's parents, before a sessions court in Pune.
While the boy’s mother is out on bail, the remaining nine are in jail.
The prosecution, earlier this mont,h told the court that attempts were made to swap blood samples at a second hospital to save the juvenile accused, but it wasn’t successful.