18-05-2025
An adult or juvenile? No decision yet on Pune Porsche teen's trial
1
2
3
Pune: May 19 marks a year since the 17-year-old son of a prominent city builder crashed his Porsche Taycan into a bike killing two techies in
Kalyaninagar
.
Ashwini Koshta
and Anish Awadhia were both 24. Both died on the spot.
Their families have been calling for
justice
, but a year on, there has been no decision yet whether the teenager is to be tried as an adult or a
juvenile
in conflict with the law.
Pune police's plea seeking the teen's trial as an adult has been pending before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) at Yerawada. Their case has come up for hearing before the JJB on multiple occasions but each time, the hearing was deferred due to adjournments sought either by the prosecution or defence.
The hearing was also impacted for a long time due to lack of quorum, after state govt terminated two nominated members of the JJB for 'misusing power' under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, after they granted bail to the teenage driver, on conditions he write a 300-word essay on traffic discipline, among others.
Recently, state govt filled the two vacant JJB positions to meet the quorum and the case is now due for a hearing tomorrow.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch Bitcoin và Ethereum - Không cần ví!
IC Markets
BẮT ĐẦU NGAY
Undo
It indeed has been a painful wait for justice for Ashwini and Anish's families in MP. Their parents have repeatedly alleged their children's deaths was "murder".
Why The Plea
When the crash occurred, the teen driver of the Porsche was just four months shy of his 18th birthday. Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act provides that a child in conflict with law who is between 16 and 18 years of age and is alleged to have committed a "heinous offence" can be tried as an adult, subject to preliminary assessment by the JJB.
The JJB can seek help from psychologists or subject experts and may also refer the matter to a medical board for an opinion before taking such a decision.
The key objective of the assessment is to determine 1) whether the minor suspect possesses the mental age of an adult and the physical capacity to commit a heinous crime, 2) ability to understand the consequences of the act, and 3) the circumstances in which the offence was committed.
The teenage driver's psychiatric assessment, de-addiction, probationary officer's assessment and RTO reports have already been submitted to the JJB and the matter is held up for a final hearing.
Police Case
Pune police's case is that the circumstances and the manner in which the Porsche Taycan crash occurred fall within the 'heinous crime' category and hence the teenage driver be treated as an adult.
The accident occurred around 2.30am on May 19, 2024, as the teen, along with two friends and his family's driver, was returning to his Wadgaonsheri bungalow, after a night out at two pubs in Mundhwa.
After the crash, Yerawada police, which initially investigated the case, were lax in referring the teenager to a blood test to determine if he was driving under the influence of alcohol and finally, when he was referred to the Sassoon General Hospital, his blood samples were swapped.
In fact, the teenager's parents and two senior Sassoon hospital doctors were among 10 people arrested in the blood test manipulation case.
All this, according to the police, indicated a conspiracy to mislead the investigation and create false evidence and needed to be dealt with firmly, including the teenager's trial as an adult.
Supreme Court lawyer Sana Raees Khan said: "The delay in deciding the police's plea for over a year reflects a systemic lapse that is even prejudicial to the minor's rights. That the JJB has not yet concluded the preliminary assessment shows either procedural delays or lack of prosecutorial urgency.
In either case, the presumption of the child's innocence and right to a fair and speedy trial are being compromised".
Senior lawyer S K Jain said: "Section 14 of the JJ Act provides, among other things, that the JJB must complete the hearing of the plea to treat the minor as an adult, within four months after receiving such a plea. It can extend the time limit by another two months and if the need arises, can seek additional time from the chief judicial magistrate to complete the hearing.
The police plea will become infructuous if the hearing is not completed within the additional time".
Child rights activist Varsha Rokade said: "A public outcry and the demand to treat the minor as an adult is natural considering the seriousness of the incident. Yet, the offence attributed to the teenage driver cannot be termed as heinous in the present case. This is because the police initially invoked section 304 (a) (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code against the minor.
The said offence is punishable for up to two years.
Later, 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC punishable up to 10 years was invoked."
Rokade said the primary objective of the JJ Act is to ensure rehabilitation of children in conflict with law in society. But at the same time, lawmakers should keep in mind that the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) also does not advocate leniency in dealing with offenders in serious crimes.
Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime) Ganesh Ingale told TOI: "We are ready to get our case argued through the special prosecutor. If our plea is allowed, then the two chargesheets filed against the teenager would be transferred from the JJB to the sessions court for trial. These chargesheets would be clubbed with the three other chargesheets filed against his parents and eight others. But, we feel the minor's lawyer is using delaying tactics and prolonging the matter".
Ingale added: "Even on May 20 when the matter is posted for hearing next, the defence has already filed an application seeking adjournment to argue the matter in June. We will make our written submission opposing such adjournment and will pray for an expeditious hearing."
Pune: May 19 marks a year since the 17-year-old son of a prominent city builder crashed his Porsche Taycan into a bike killing two techies in Kalyaninagar.
Ashwini Koshta and Anish Awadhia were both 24. Both died on the spot.
Their families have been calling for justice, but a year on, there has been no decision yet whether the teenager is to be tried as an adult or a juvenile in conflict with the law.
Pune police's plea seeking the teen's trial as an adult has been pending before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) at Yerawada. Their case has come up for hearing before the JJB on multiple occasions but each time, the hearing was deferred due to adjournments sought either by the prosecution or defence.
The hearing was also impacted for a long time due to lack of quorum, after state govt terminated two nominated members of the JJB for 'misusing power' under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, after they granted bail to the teenage driver, on conditions he write a 300-word essay on traffic discipline, among others.
Recently, state govt filled the two vacant JJB positions to meet the quorum and the case is now due for a hearing tomorrow.
It indeed has been a painful wait for justice for Ashwini and Anish's families in MP. Their parents have repeatedly alleged their children's deaths was "murder".
Why The Plea
When the crash occurred, the teen driver of the Porsche was just four months shy of his 18th birthday. Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act provides that a child in conflict with law who is between 16 and 18 years of age and is alleged to have committed a "heinous offence" can be tried as an adult, subject to preliminary assessment by the JJB.
The JJB can seek help from psychologists or subject experts and may also refer the matter to a medical board for an opinion before taking such a decision.
The key objective of the assessment is to determine 1) whether the minor suspect possesses the mental age of an adult and the physical capacity to commit a heinous crime, 2) ability to understand the consequences of the act, and 3) the circumstances in which the offence was committed.
The teenage driver's psychiatric assessment, de-addiction, probationary officer's assessment and RTO reports have already been submitted to the JJB and the matter is held up for a final hearing.
Police Case
Pune police's case is that the circumstances and the manner in which the Porsche Taycan crash occurred fall within the 'heinous crime' category and hence the teenage driver be treated as an adult.
The accident occurred around 2.30am on May 19, 2024, as the teen, along with two friends and his family's driver, was returning to his Wadgaonsheri bungalow, after a night out at two pubs in Mundhwa.
After the crash, Yerawada police, which initially investigated the case, were lax in referring the teenager to a blood test to determine if he was driving under the influence of alcohol and finally, when he was referred to the Sassoon General Hospital, his blood samples were swapped.
In fact, the teenager's parents and two senior Sassoon hospital doctors were among 10 people arrested in the blood test manipulation case.
All this, according to the police, indicated a conspiracy to mislead the investigation and create false evidence and needed to be dealt with firmly, including the teenager's trial as an adult.
Supreme Court lawyer Sana Raees Khan said: "The delay in deciding the police's plea for over a year reflects a systemic lapse that is even prejudicial to the minor's rights. That the JJB has not yet concluded the preliminary assessment shows either procedural delays or lack of prosecutorial urgency.
In either case, the presumption of the child's innocence and right to a fair and speedy trial are being compromised".
Senior lawyer S K Jain said: "Section 14 of the JJ Act provides, among other things, that the JJB must complete the hearing of the plea to treat the minor as an adult, within four months after receiving such a plea. It can extend the time limit by another two months and if the need arises, can seek additional time from the chief judicial magistrate to complete the hearing.
The police plea will become infructuous if the hearing is not completed within the additional time".
Child rights activist Varsha Rokade said: "A public outcry and the demand to treat the minor as an adult is natural considering the seriousness of the incident. Yet, the offence attributed to the teenage driver cannot be termed as heinous in the present case. This is because the police initially invoked section 304 (a) (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code against the minor.
The said offence is punishable for up to two years.
Later, 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC punishable up to 10 years was invoked."
Rokade said the primary objective of the JJ Act is to ensure rehabilitation of children in conflict with law in society. But at the same time, lawmakers should keep in mind that the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) also does not advocate leniency in dealing with offenders in serious crimes.
Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime) Ganesh Ingale told TOI: "We are ready to get our case argued through the special prosecutor. If our plea is allowed, then the two chargesheets filed against the teenager would be transferred from the JJB to the sessions court for trial. These chargesheets would be clubbed with the three other chargesheets filed against his parents and eight others. But, we feel the minor's lawyer is using delaying tactics and prolonging the matter".
Ingale added: "Even on May 20 when the matter is posted for hearing next, the defence has already filed an application seeking adjournment to argue the matter in June. We will make our written submission opposing such adjournment and will pray for an expeditious hearing."
