Pune, Jul 15 (PTI) The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on Tuesday rejected the Pune city police’s application seeking that the 17-year-old boy accused in the deadly Porsche car crash be tried as an adult in the case, stating the offence does not qualify as a "heinous crime", said the prosecution.
The boy, son of a well-known real estate developer, is accused of driving the luxury car in Kalyani Nagar area of Pune in an inebriated state and fatally knocking down two motorcycle-borne IT professionals, Anish Awadhiya and Ashwini Costa, in May last year, an incident that attracted nationwide attention.
Citing sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Pune city police 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.
On Tuesday, the Board rejected the plea by the police to treat the boy as an adult for the trial, as per
defence and prosecution counsels.
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 SC 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 SC guidelines, it is not maintainable," Patil said.
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 which has a minimum punishment of seven years. So, we argued that the prosecution’s plea is not maintainable," he said.
The Board’s preliminary assessment did not determine that the boy should be treated as an adult," said Patil.
"For the last two months, both prosecution and defence presented their arguments (on the police plea). After hearing both sides, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) 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 insisted.
The SPP further said that in the present case -- where a 17-year-old boy was allowed to consume alcohol and then drive a car -- calls for a deeper examination of the issue of drunk driving and its effect.
"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.
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 month 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.
The prosecution said the Pune police, who first got blood samples of the minor collected at the
state-run Sassoon Hospital, suspected that there was a possibility of tampering.
The police then got the teenager’s blood samples collected at the Aundh Government Hospital as a pre-emptive measure, but some of the other accused, including his parents, got a whiff of it, the police had said.
The accused persons approached the Aundh hospital authorities to swap the samples, but the doctors there refused to cooperate and turned them away, the prosecution claimed.