Pune Porsche crash: Prosecution says drunk teen must face trial as an adult

Business Standard

5 hours ago

In the Pune Porsche crash case that claimed two young lives in Pune last year, the prosecution has urged the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to allow the 17-year-old accused to be tried as an adult. The prosecution argued that the teen was fully aware of the consequences of driving under the influence and called the incident a 'heinous offence', reported The Indian Express.
The crash took place in the early hours of May 19, 2024, when the speeding Porsche car, allegedly driven by the minor in an inebriated state, rammed into a motorcycle in Kalyani Nagar. The impact killed two IT professionals, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both 24, and originally from Madhya Pradesh.
On Monday, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Shishir Hiray appeared before the JJB, stressing that the minor was booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 467 (forgery), both carrying punishments of ten years or more — making the case fall under the 'heinous offence' category as per Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
'He knew the consequences'
Hiray argued that the teen had not only consumed alcohol but also ignored warnings from the actual driver of the Porsche. 'Still, the minor drove the Porsche after consuming liquor and committed the crime. He knew the consequences of driving under the influence,' said Hiray.
He further alleged that the minor was present at Sassoon Hospital when his blood samples were swapped — an act he said proves the teen understood the legal consequences of his actions. 'He was aware that this was a crime. He should be tried as an adult,' Hiray added.
According to police submissions, under Section 15(1) of the JJ Act, in cases involving heinous offences, the JJB must assess the minor's mental and physical ability to commit such a crime, his understanding of the consequences, and the circumstances around the act. If the Board is satisfied, it can order an adult trial under Section 18(3).
Defence argues for rehabilitation
On the other side, senior defence lawyer Prashant Patil opposed the prosecution's request. He argued that the incident, though tragic, stemmed from a moment of recklessness, not criminal intent.
'The child in conflict with law [CCL] has no prior record. He lacked full comprehension of the legal and moral impact of his actions,' Patil said, stressing that the objective of the Juvenile Justice Act is 'reformative' rather than 'punitive'.
He further cited the Supreme Court's judgement in Shilpa Mittal vs State of Delhi, asserting that the charges may not legally fall within the ambit of a 'heinous offence' as defined under the JJ Act.
Court to assess minor's mindset
Patil further submitted that per Section 2(12) of the Act, anyone under 18 is considered a child. 'Even if the act was grave, the law aims to rehabilitate, not punish, the child like an adult,' he said, arguing that the emotional and mental maturity of the accused is not comparable to that of a grown-up.
The Juvenile Justice Board is yet to pass an order and will consider psychological evaluations and counselling reports before taking a decision. The next hearing is scheduled for July 15.