The JJB’s principal magistrate GN Bagdodia was presiding over the hearing of Pune police’s application seeking the teenage driver’s trial as an adult and referring his case to a regular court. It has reserved for July 15 a final order in the matter after hearing both sides.Special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray submitted that the police invoked section 304 (culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the case and later invoked IPC section 467 (forgery). The two sections provide maximum punishments for up to 10 years and life imprisonment, respectively, and once a section providing life term punishment is invoked, the crime becomes serious in nature.“The child in conflict with law (CCL) knew very well the consequences of these offences. Police have evidence in the form of CCTV footage from the two pubs where the teenager partied with his friends and also witness statements that support the theory he had consumed alcohol and was driving the car under the influence of alcohol,” the prosecutor submitted.“The CCL’s family driver too has recorded the statement that the teenager did not pay heed to his advice against driving the vehicle in an inebriated condition,” Hiray said. Finally, he submitted, when the police referred the teenager to the Sassoon General Hospital for a test to determine alcohol content in his blood, his parents and other co-accused, including the two (suspended) Sassoon doctors, got the blood samples swapped to manipulate the tests, the prosecutor submitted.Two young software engineers were killed when a prominent city builder’s 17-year-old son, who was driving the high-end car back to his bungalow at Wadgaon Sheri after partying with friends at a couple of pubs in Mundhwa, rammed their motorcycle from behind at Kalyaninagar junction around 2.30am on May 19, 2024.The teenage driver’s lawyer Prashant Patil cited a Supreme Court judgment in the Shilpa Mittal vs state of NCT Delhi and submitted that the object of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act is rehabilitation and social reintegration and not punishment.Patil told TOI, “We have submitted before the JJB that the police plea be rejected as the case does not fall within the heinous crime category. Criminal intention and knowledge, which are key ingredients to attracting culpable homicide and forgery charges, are missing. The child has no prior criminal record and the fatal incident though unfortunate arose out of a moment of poor judgment.”Patil said sections related to culpable homicide and forgery provide maximum punishments, but do not prescribe minimum punishments. “An offence which does not prescribe a minimum sentence but provides for a maximum of more than seven years cannot be classified as a heinous offence under the provisions of section 2 (33) of the JJ Act,” he said. “The minor’s future, including his education and career, also needs to be considered,” he added.
