Accused in Porsche crash case using delay tactics in proceedings: Special Prosecutor
On June 27, Special Prosecutor Hiray opened the prosecution case under CrPC section 226. He had submitted to the court the evidence they have against the 10 accused and what charges can be framed based on that.
Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray said, 'Two of the accused have moved an application seeking a copy of the chargesheet. We replied that we have already given them the chargesheet. They argued that we have given them only the part pertaining to the charges against them. We have said that we have already given them the full charge sheet and that this was a concocted demand. We have mentioned that these tactics used by the accused are to delay the proceedings of the court.'
On May 19 2024, two young IT engineers — Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta — were killed after the speeding Porsche, allegedly driven by an inebriated 17-and-a-half-year-old from a Pune realtor family, rammed their motorcycle at Kalyani Nagar junction.
The fatal accident had taken place after the minor and his friends had celebrated their Class 12 exam results at a pub. The minor was allegedly driving a Porsche Taycan luxury car which did not have number plates. Other than the minor driver the police have till now arraigned and chargesheeted a total of 10 accused. The 51-year-old realtor father and 50-year-old mother of the minor have been charged with criminal conspiracy for allegedly orchestrating a swap of the minor driver's blood sample—collected at Sassoon Hospital—with that of the mother's. Dr Ajay Taware, then head of the forensic medicine of Sassoon hospital, Dr Shrihari Halnor, then casualty medical officer; Atul Ghatkamble, a staffer at the hospital's morgue; and Ashpak Makandar and Amar Gaikwad, who acted as middlemen between the minor's father and the doctors, have all been arraigned.
Pune police have also arrested and charged a 37-year-old man who had given his blood to be swapped with that of a minor co-passenger and along with the father of that co-passenger. The 52-year-old father of another minor co-passenger, was also arrested earlier for giving his own blood sample to be swapped with his son. In the hearing on June 27, Adv Hiray had concluded his arguments towards framing of the charges.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
4 hours ago
- NDTV
All 4 Accused In Kolkata Rape Case Remanded To Police Custody
Kolkata: In what is being claimed as a first-of-its-kind order by a court in Kolkata, all four accused in the South Calcutta Law College rape case were remanded to police custody for an additional period of three days, 39 days after they were first arrested. The prime accused in the case, Monojit Mishra, an alumnus and a contractual employee of the college, and two of his suspected accomplices, Pramit Mukhopadhyay and Zaib Ahmed, both students, along with Pinaki Banerjee, security guard of the campus, were granted police custody till August 8 by Amit Sarkar, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Alipore Court. The order was passed on Tuesday in the wake of all four accused having previously been remanded to police custody for 11 days, followed by their judicial custody for another 28 days. "Under the provisions of Section 167 of the earlier CrPC Act, the prayer for police remand had to be made within the first 15 days of arrest. That provision has now changed under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC on July 1, 2024. The BNSS now empowers the police to pray for remand anytime within the first 60 days of arrest for heinous crimes like rape and murder," Sourin Ghosal, the Kolkata Police Chief Public Prosecutor in Alipore Court, explained. "But this was the first time that the relevant clauses of BNSS were invoked in a court in Kolkata and, possibly, in the entire West Bengal and in which the judge found merit," Mr Ghoshal added. He said that the prayer for additional police remand of the accused was made in the light of fresh reports received by the investigators from cyber and forensic experts. "The statements previously made by the accused and the reports we have now received do not match in many places. Hence, there is a need to freshly interrogate the accused in police custody and, if required, they may be made to sit face to face to get to the bottom of the alleged crime," Mr Ghoshal said. In its order, the ACJM court, Alipore, rejected the defence counsel's prayer for bail and held that Section 47 of the BNSS, which mandates the police to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and right to bail, has been "duly complied" with. "It transpires from the prayer of the prosecution that PC is required for the purpose of pending investigations and so more fully described in the forwarding report of the IO. On perusal of the CD (case diary), I do find incriminating materials available against all the accused persons," the judge stated in his order. "All these aspects seem to this Court to be much of the essence and importance so far as investigation of this case is concerned, but the case itself is very grave and heinous to say the least. The purpose of the investigation of this case can be well served if the police custody of the present accused persons is granted by this court as prayed for," the order goes on to add. The shocking on-campus rape was alleged by a first-year student at the law college in south Kolkata's Kasba area where she named Mishra as the principal perpetrator of the crime and both Mukhopadhyay and Ahmed as accomplices. While the crime allegedly took place between 7.30 pm and 10.50 pm on June 25, the three accused were arrested on the intervening night of June 26 and 27. They were subsequently produced in Alipore court and remanded in police custody on June 27. A day later, the on-duty security guard of the campus during the time of the alleged crime, was also booked and remanded in custody. All accused have since been produced before the court thrice for extension of police remand and their subsequent judicial custody. The Kolkata Police prayed for the maximum term of custody for all the accused after they had served two back-to-back judicial remands of 28 days.
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Chhattisgarh High Court acquits man convicted for murdering kin on grounds of ‘legal insanity'
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently acquitted a 25-year-old man who was awarded a life sentence for murdering his father and grandmother, after his counsel was able to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind. Holding that Dhamtari resident Mahesh Verma, who had been convicted for the 2021 double murder, fitted the term legally insane, the court said that the Investigating Officer admitted that during the investigation, he did not procure any documents relating to psychiatric treatment of the accused from his family members. It further said that despite a preliminary report clearly referring to the appellant as a mental patient, no certificate from the treating psychiatrist was obtained, and the trial court merely relied on a report from the inquiry under Section 328 CrPC (which assesses competency to stand trial), not the mental status at the time of the act which is the legally relevant consideration under Section 22 BNS (or section 84 of the IPC referring to an Act by a person of unsound mind – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law). The HC held that an accused who seeks exoneration from liability for an act under Section 84 has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Legal insanity 'Since the term insanity or unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the Penal Code, it carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity,' the verdict delivered by Judge Bibhu Datta Guru and Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha said. Mahesh's counsel, Abhishek Sinha, had argued before the High Court that his client was suffering from insanity at the time, and a non-examination of his mental state created a serious infirmity in the case. Mr. Sinha said the accused had suffered a head injury during Covid 19 lockdown, and his mental state was not good, and he had been under treatment for the last year at Raipur Mmental Hospital. The incident On April 13, 2021, at around 11 pm, Mahesh, who was kept locked in his room because he was mentally unstable, demanded that his mother, Rekha, open the door so he could get water. His mother was fearful and did not open the door; she called her husband, Pannalal Verma, who subsequently opened the door. When his family asked him why he was creating a commotion, Mahesh said, 'I am Hanuman ji, Bajrang Bali, and Durga.' He then pushed away his mother and started attacking his father and grandmother, Triveni. His mother went to seek help from the neighbours but by the time she returned, Pannalal and Triveni were dead. The matter went to a Sessions court which convicted Mahesh for double murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment in February 2024.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Kharar realtor Ranjeet Singh Gill seeks anticipatory bail after Punjab VB raids, alleges political vendetta
Chandigarh: Apprehending arrest by Punjab Police, Kharar-based realtor Ranjeet Singh Gill approached the Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday to seek anticipatory bail. After hearing his plea, a single bench headed by Justice Aaradhana Sawhney referred the matter to the chief justice for directions after the Punjab govt informed the court that the matter is connected with an already pending petition filed by former minister Bikramjit Singh Majithia. A separate bench is hearing all cases that are related to the former and sitting MPs and MLAs. In his petition, Gill claimed that he was falsely and maliciously targeted by the vigilance bureau (VB), Punjab, solely on account of his political affiliation. Immediately after formally joining the Bharatiya Janata Party on Aug 1, Gill said, he became the subject of a politically motivated action by the state machinery. It was contended that acting under the influence of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the VB procured search warrants in an arbitrary and clandestine manner, without issuing any summons, notice, or requisition as mandated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like They Were So Beautiful Before; Now Look At Them; Number 10 Will Shock You Paperela Undo The court was informed that multiple raids were conducted on Aug 2 at four of the petitioner's properties, including his residence, yet no incriminating material was found. However, now the notices under Section 179 of BNSS (corresponding Section 160 CrPC) have been issued, whereby he was summoned as a witness. "The petitioner is neither named in any FIR nor linked to the case by way of any disclosure or evidence, and the jurisdictional authority of the Vigilance Bureau does not extend to him as he is not a public servant. The entire sequence of events demonstrates a clear abuse of process, malafide intent, and political vendetta aimed at coercing and humiliating the petitioner for exercising his constitutional right to political association under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India," his counsel submitted. On Aug 1, Gill joined BJP in a hurriedly called meeting with Haryana chief minister Nayab Singh Saini at his residence. On Saturday, the bureau raided his residences.
