Pune Porsche Case | “He Knew It Could Harm Others”: Prosecutors Urge Trial Of 17-Year-Old As Adult For Drunk Driving Crash That Killed 2
Prosecution pushes Juvenile Justice Board to try 17-year-old Porsche driver as an adult for fatal drunk driving case in Pune. Teen got early bail, triggering national outrage.
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
PUNE: The prosecution on Monday (June 23) urged the Juvenile Justice Board to treat a 17-year-old boy accused of driving a Porsche car in an inebriated state and mowing down two persons last year in Pune as an adult, saying he committed a “heinous” act.
The accident made big news all over the country when it happened. Two IT professionals riding a motorcycle, Anish Awadhiya and his friend Ashwini Costa, died in the crash.
It has now been over a year since the Pune police requested that the accused be tried as an adult, but the matter is still pending in front of the Juvenile Justice Board.
“The Pune police had moved an application before the JJB after the accident that the teen should be treated as an adult for the trial. But the defence sought adjournment multiple times. The defence was not allowing the hearing to take place,”
-said special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray.
“Today, finally, the hearing on the plea took place. We demanded that the teen be treated as an adult for the trial,”
-Hiray added.
He explained why the prosecution thinks the boy should not be treated like a minor. Hiray said that two people had died because of the accident, and there were also efforts made to cover up the crime.
“I drew the JJB members’ attention to the gravity of the crime. I argued that it was known to the juvenile that he could cause harm to others by driving a car in an inebriated condition,”
-Hiray said.
But the teenager’s lawyer, Prashant Patil, opposed this strongly.
He referred to a major Supreme Court judgement (Shilpa Mittal vs State), which explains what counts as a “heinous crime”.
“The plea by the prosecution is contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgement. We demanded that since the plea is contrary to the guidelines of the Supreme Court, it is not maintainable. To define a certain crime as heinous, the prosecution must have a section in which minimum punishment is seven years,”
-Patil said.
He explained that in this case, no legal section involved carries a punishment of minimum seven years.
Patil also said that the Board had already carried out the necessary legal steps to decide whether the boy should be treated as a child or an adult.
“In this case, the JJB has already done that. And it has not come in their preliminary assessment that he should be treated as an adult,”
-he said.
After the accident last year on May 19, the teen was quickly granted bail within a few hours. He was only asked to write a 300-word essay on road safety. This soft treatment created a lot of anger among people all over the country.
Because of the public outcry, he was sent to an observation home in Pune just three days later.
But on June 25, 2024, the Bombay High Court said the order to send him to the observation home was wrong. The court said that the law for juveniles must be followed completely and gave a clear direction for the boy to be released.
“The Juvenile Justice Board’s orders remanding him to an observation home were illegal and the law regarding juveniles must be implemented fully,”
-the High Court said.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Pune Porsche Case
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Drunk Driving
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
