Pune Porsche Case : Prosecution Seeks Trial Of Accused Teen As Adult

In the Pune Porsche crash case that claimed the lives of two motorcycle-borne IT professionals, Anish Awadhiya and his friend Ashwini Costa, prosecution has urged the Juvenile Justice board (JJB) to try the 17-year-old accused of driving the car in an inebriated state, as an adult. 

The incident, which hit national headlines, took place in Kalyani Nagar area in the early hours of May 19 last year, when the speeding Porsche allegedly driven by a minor rammed into a motorcycle, resulting in the death of two people. 

It has been more than a year since the Pune police's plea seeking the accused be tried as an adult is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board.

On Monday, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Shishir Hiray said, "The Pune police had moved an application before the JJB after the accident that the teen should be treated as an adult for the trial. But the defence sought adjournment multiple times. The defence was not allowing the hearing to take place." 

"Today, finally, the hearing on the plea took place. We demanded that the teen be treated as an adult for the trial," Hiray added.

The prosecutor further argued that the 17-year-old, referred to as Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), was driving under the influence of alcohol and has been booked under Indian Penal Code (IPS) Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 467 (forgery) for alleged tampering of blood samples, reported Hindustan Times.

The prosecution drew JJB members’ attention towards the gravity of the crime, emphasising that the juvenile knew that he could cause harm to others by driving the car in an inebriated condition.

“Both offences are punishable by over 10 years and are categorised as heinous under the Juvenile Justice Act. The CCL knows the consequences and must face trial as an adult,” Hiray told the board.

Defence lawyer, Prashant Patil, opposed the prosecution's plea, by citing the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shilpa Mittal versus State case, which defines what  a “heinous crime” is, aligning it with the intended focus of the Juvenile Justice Act of rehabilitation and reform, reported Hindustan Times.

"The plea by the prosecution is contrary to the Supreme Court's judgement. We demanded that since the plea is contrary to the guidelines of the Supreme Court, it is not maintainable. To define a certain crime as heinous, the prosecution must have a section in which minimum punishment is seven years," Patil said.

The defence asked the board to consider the child’s potential for reform and argued that his trial as an adult will go against the very spirit of Juvenile Justice.

“In the present case, there is not a single section in which the minimum punishment is seven years, the JJB has to carry out a preliminary assessment to determine whether a child in conflict with law should be treated as an adult or a minor”, he said.

He further added that in this specific case the JJB had already done the following and it had not come up in their preliminary assessment that he should be treated as an adult.

The accused teenager got bail within hours after the accident on May 19 last year.

The lenient bail terms, including asking the minor to write a 300-word essay on road safety, sparked public outrage, following which he was sent to an observation home in Pune city three days later.

On June 25, 2024, the Bombay High Court directed that the boy be released immediately, saying the Juvenile Justice Board’s orders remanding him to an observation home were illegal and the law regarding juveniles must be implemented fully.