Pune: Was Minor Boy Saved After Influential Intervention In Fatal Porsche Accident Case?
Reported by Sumit Singh & Tikam Shekhawat
Kalyani Nagar, 20th May 2024: Nationalist Congress Party (Ajit Pawar) MLA Sunil Tingre intervened at the Yerwada police station following the fatal car accident, initially attempting to shift blame onto another driver.
However, eyewitnesses confirmed that the minor, who is the son of builder Vishal Agarwal, was driving the car aggressively, with another individual seated beside him. Besides a driver, his two friends were also in the sports car which was said to be running at over 150 km per hour when it hit the bike of IT engineers Ashwini Koshta (24) and Aneesh Awadhiya (24) near Landmark Garden Society on Kalyani Nagar – Airport Road. The incident took place around 3 am on Sunday. The minor had visited Cosie bar as well as Blak Club at Marriott Suites in Koregaon Park before the accident. Police have registered a case against his father for allowing him to drive the car as well as the club owner for serving liquor to the minor boy.
The Yerwada police registered a case against the minor under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Motor Vehicle Act. The charges include rash driving on a public way (IPC 279), causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide (IPC 304A), causing hurt by a rash or negligent act endangering human life (IPC 337), causing grievous hurt (IPC 338), and committing mischief resulting in damage (IPC 427). Additional charges under the Motor Vehicle Act include dangerous driving (Section 184) and using a vehicle without a valid license (Sections 119/177). Represented by lawyer Prashant Patil, the 17-year-old was released on bail on Sunday.
Senior lawyer SK Jain commented, “In section 304, when there is intention and knowledge, such a section can be used. When there is no intention and knowledge, IPC 304A will prevail. Based on the circumstances, evidence, and information, the police need to use the appropriate section. In this situation, the parents should also be held liable for the crime.”
Advocate Chinmay S. Bhosale stated, “The case should have fallen under IPC 304 instead of 304A. Post-Nirbhaya, the 2013 amendment allows minors close to the age of 18 to be tried as adults for serious and heinous crimes or those with imprisonment of more than seven years. The police have currently used bailable sections, but during the investigation, they need to establish intention and apply IPC 304. Given the minor was under the influence of alcohol and not of legal driving age, this act indicates knowledge that could endanger others’ lives.”
Additional Commissioner of Police (East region) Manoj Patil remarked, “We will apply IPC 304 in this case and ensure it is tried under adult jurisdiction as per the Juvenile Justice Board and the new Criminal Amendment Act of 2013 under the Criminal Procedure Code.”
This case highlights the ongoing debate over the accountability of minors in serious crimes and the influence of political intervention in legal proceedings.
