Abstract
The Pune Porsche Crash incident garnered a lot of attention and caused public outrage due to the details surrounding the case. The public consensus is that this was a classic case of rich people abusing their money and power to bend the law to their advantage, while the common people are left helpless. This case serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of drunk driving and what happens when yes-parenting is taken too far. From social media posts to news articles, the details of this incident spread fast and important questions were raised about the efficacy of the legal system in delivering justice. This goes beyond just a case of reckless driving under the influence, it brings up important topics like wealth disparity, abuse of authority, the treatment of juveniles in serious cases, and most importantly, whether everyone is really equal in the eyes of the law. It questions the actions of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) – did the punishment fit the crime by any means? The infamous case of Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors, also known as the Nirbhaya Case, which led to debates and discussions about the age of criminal responsibility in India, eventually led to the amendment and enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which allowed for the trial of juveniles aged 16-18 as adults in certain heinous offences. But in recent times, are minors given adequate punishment under the Indian judiciary system? This paper seeks to delve into the heart of the Pune Porsche Crash case, dissecting the intricate legal framework, scrutinizing the actions of law enforcement agencies, and examining the societal implications of the verdict rendered.
Keywords
Drunk driving, yes-parenting, wealth disparity, Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Nirbhaya Case, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Introduction
On the 19th of May, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both 24-year-old IT engineers, were travelling on a motorcycle along Kalyani Nagar Airport Road in Pune when a Porsche Taycan, speeding at over 200 km/h, hit their bike, killing them. The driver was 17-year-old Vedant Agarwal, who was under the influence of alcohol after partying in two pubs in Koregaon Park, ‘Cosie’ and ‘BLAK’ in Marriott Suites. The boy attempted to flee the scene; however, he was caught and beaten up by the locals who handed him over to the police at Yerwada Police Station.
Outside of the station, one crime reporter reported seeing a man get out of a Mercedes car, wearing a Safari suit and carrying 7-8 pizza boxes which were delivered to the boy, who was allegedly sitting on the ACP’s chair. Local MLA Sunil Tingre reached the police station at 3 A.M. He claimed that since he was a responsible public representative and he also knew the Agarwals for 30 years, he came to the station to offer help at the request of the family but after learning the gravity of the case, he decided against interfering. The next day, the boy was presented in front of the Juvenile Justice Board without following the proper protocol, according to which, the Pune Police had to conduct 2 tests immediately after the incident – a blood test and a personal appearance test. They did not conduct these tests for 8 hours. The blood sample was later sent to Sassoon Hospital, but Pune’s Police Commissioner revealed that the hospital’s Chief Medical Officer threw the boy’s sample in the dustbin and replaced it with the mother’s, which was sent to the forensic lab. The boy’s parents are said to have bribed two doctors, Dr Ajay Taware and Dr Shrihari Halnor, with money amounting to 3 lakh rupees, to swap the blood samples.
The Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to the minor within 15 hours of his arrest. The bail conditions required him to undergo de-addiction counselling and psychiatric consultation, visit the Regional Transport Office, study traffic rules, and submit a 300-word essay on road accidents and their solutions to the Board within 15 days. However, intense criticism by the media soon followed and the police approached the JJB again, which resulted in a modified order that sent the boy to an observation home until 5th June. The boy’s father, Vishal Agarwal, had allowed him to drive the car despite being informed by the driver that he was under the influence of alcohol and later on, the grandfather of the boy was accused of threatening the driver to take responsibility in his stead and even snatched his phone and locked him up in their house for a day, the driver being later released by his wife. Thus, the juvenile’s parents, his grandfather, and the hospital staff were taken into custody. For the crime of serving alcohol to a minor, the police arrested Pralhad Bhootada, the owner and Sachin Katkar, the manager of the hotel where the minor accused drank on the night before the incident. Sandeep Sangle, the manager of the second hotel, was arrested as well. In addition to this, two more people were arrested for serving as intermediaries between the doctors and the father.
Research Methodology
This research paper is of a descriptive type. Secondary sources of information like newspaper articles, journals, magazines, and websites were used to collect information regarding the case to provide an authentic outlook on the incident and to raise awareness against reckless driving under the influence of alcohol, lack of accountability, the gross abuse of money and power, and corruption found within the legal system.
Review of Literature
When the minor was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 placed three options, irrespective of whether the offence was bailable or non-bailable:
- Release him on bail with or without surety
- Release him under the supervision of a probation officer
- Release him under the care of a fit person
The following three situations were provided under which bail could be denied:
- Reasonable grounds for believing that the release would likely associate that individual with any known criminal
- Expose the said person to moral, physical, or psychological danger
- The person’s release would defeat the ends of justice
The juvenile, Vedant Agarwal, was charged under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of Section 304. There is a very important distinction between these two sections. In Section 304A, which provides punishment for causing death by negligence, the offender is not aware that his actions could cause the death of another and therefore, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for up to 2 years. Whereas, in Section 304, which provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the offender is aware of the fact that his actions could result in the death of another and thus, the maximum punishment awarded is up to 10 years of imprisonment. The juvenile being arrested under the former section makes little to no sense as it is rational to assume that he was aware that rash driving under the influence of alcohol could easily lead to the death of someone.
However, when we analyse case law, we might find that objectively speaking, the decision of the JJB might be in line with the object and spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, no matter how egregious it may seem.
In Naisul Khatun vs. State of Assam and Ors. (2010), for example, the criteria for deciding on the bail application of a minor under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, was analysed by the Gauhati High Court’s Division bench, which observed “The language used in Section 12(1) of the Act is rather interesting in this context, and shorn of unnecessary verbiage, the Section would read: ‘such (a juvenile) shall be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to…”. Refusal to bail out a juvenile is, therefore, more in the nature of protective custody rather than penal custody.”
The judgement further states that compelling reasons must exist to justify not giving bail to a Child in Conflict with Law (CiCL). The Juvenile Justice Board in the Pune case could not reasonably expect that giving bail to the minor would put him in danger by exposing him ‘to a known criminal’. When it comes to the third ground for not granting bail, what constitutes as ‘ends of justice’ needs to be defined.
Due to a legal technicality, it becomes almost impossible to carry out a proper punishment against the juvenile in the Pune case. In the landmark judgement of the Nirbhaya Case, the Juvenile Justice Act was amended, according to which, a minor in the age bracket of 16-18 could be tried as an adult for heinous offences. Heinous offences are defined as crimes for which the minimum punishment is 7 years or more. These include rape, murder, dacoity, etc. The problem arises because even Section 304 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence for jail; therefore it does not fall under the category of ‘heinous offences’. What might be an even more infuriating fact is that the juvenile, Vedant Agarwal, was only 4 months away from turning 18. Using this one loophole, plenty of criminals like him have escaped from the claws of justice. Only by analysing the cases mentioned below can we form an idea regarding how juveniles are treated so impartially because of one legal technicality.
In 2016, a 32-year-old man by the name of Siddharth Sharma was killed in a hit-and-run incident when he was trying to cross a road near Ludlow Castle School in north Delhi and was hit by a speeding Mercedes. The person behind the wheel was a juvenile who was a repeat offender and only 4 days short of turning 18, but he was tried as a minor by the Supreme Court, which later granted relief to him.
In October of 2023, a 15-year-old boy, son of a renowned doctor in Kanpur, was detained by the police in a hit-and-run case where he knocked down two children with his car in the city’s Barra area. A case was registered against him under Section 304 of the IPC; however, he was released on bail soon after the incident occurred. On March 31st, 2024, the boy was again involved in a similar incident where he injured four people with his car. The police registered a case under IPC Sections 279 and 338 (reckless driving) afterwards, but he was let go by them. On 22nd May, he was finally arrested as public unrest grew after the Pune incident.
There is a common theme of rich privileged children getting away with committing such grave crimes by abusing their parents’ money and power, which not only lets them get away without facing any consequences for their actions but also sets a bad precedent in a country where judgements of previous cases are used as references in future ones. If these serious juvenile offenders are not punished and are left scot-free, then it will encourage more minors to commit offences and will erase any aspect of moral accountability from the conscience of these people. In the Pune case, the lawyer of the accused minor claimed that the boy was going through depression which led to his alcohol addiction, when in reality, the minor was in a celebratory mood, out partying with his friends after receiving his 12th examination results. This shows a severe lack of honesty, accountability, and responsibility.
The bail conditions of writing a 300-word essay on road accidents and their solutions and working with the RTO to understand traffic rules were the highlights of the multiple issues that people had with this decision. These conditions prove the fact that the Juvenile Justice Board underestimated the gravity of the situation. The punishment does not fit the crime by any means. In a case where a minor was under the influence of alcohol and participated in rash driving, resulting in the death of 2 people, writing an essay or understanding traffic rules is hardly enough to make him realize the horrifying nature of his crime. The goal of juvenile law is to set up a system distinct from the adult criminal justice system for ‘apprehension, detention, prosecution, penalty or imprisonment, rehabilitation and social reintegration of children in conflict with law’. The difference lies in the fact that in the case of juveniles, the focus is on rehabilitation rather than punishment. However, this was not an ordinary case where a minor offence was committed. Even though the adults involved in this incident are to be blamed more than the boy, he still needs to face proper punishment to return to society as a better citizen and that can only be done if he is tried as an adult, as is being requested by the Pune Police.
Suggestions
Education and spreading awareness are the primary steps to ensure that such an incident never occurs again. Education and awareness are indispensable catalysts for transforming the juvenile judicial system and promoting positive outcomes for youth offenders. Only by equipping the youth with knowledge regarding the law and the importance of following it and teaching them to foster qualities like empathy, accountability, and cooperation, can root causes be addressed and community safety can be ensured, thereby reducing delinquency. Sometimes, yes-parenting can lead to more problems than benefits as is evident in this case. Strict parenting measures must be adopted at home to ensure that children do not participate in any unethical or illegal activities. Surrounding the youth with a community which supports them and teaches them about responsibility, discipline, and consequences is necessary to instil proper ideals in their mind.
Legal reforms are a potent tool to corroborate the elimination of injustice. Our legislation needs to be reviewed constantly and judicial precedent must be taken into account when dealing with cases involving juveniles. Past case laws form the legal guidelines for future cases; hence previous judgements should encourage people to follow the law, instead of breaking it. For this, everybody needs to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. The rich and the powerful must be brought down to the same level as the common people. The law enforcement agencies and the judiciary system must be cleansed of corruption, and offenders involved in serious cases must be reprimanded justly. Juveniles must not be let off the hook simply because of their age or socio-economic background. To promote public safety and to deter minors from breaking the law, harsher sentences must be awarded and repeat offenders must face accountability for their actions. The juvenile justice system prides itself on its principle of rehabilitation, aiming to redirect wayward youth towards more productive and law-abiding paths. However, achieving successful rehabilitation requires proactive interventions and incentives that motivate juveniles to pursue positive change.
Incentives play a huge part in making actual changes at the ground level, to produce the desired outcome. Higher incentives amount to greater levels of effort, which results in higher levels of performance. As long as public outrage persists in society, our governing bodies will use all their resources to produce effective solutions to the problems. After the outrage dies down, these resources are used like before and no real changes are made, resulting in the persistence of the same static institution. Therefore, we must increase our incentives based on our shared goals and priorities to bring about a permanent solution. Incentivizing change within the juvenile judicial system necessitates collaborative partnerships among government agencies, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, etc. People need to unite, stand their ground, and make demands until they’ve been performed. Temporary solutions do not repair anything; they are merely illusions to distract people from achieving something substantial.
Conclusion
The Pune Porsche Crash case is not a mere case of juvenile delinquency. It consists of a lot of layers which reveal the truth about the nature of the justice system in our country. A country like India, which prides itself on its diversity and customs, falls short when it comes to treating everyone equally in the eyes of the law. The wealth disparity, a persisting problem which exists in our country, allows for the rich and powerful people to abuse their privilege to bribe corrupted officials working in our government and law enforcement agencies. The upper-class people bend the law according to their will and face no consequences; in fact, they are rewarded for it, while the lower strata of society suffer due to the former’s actions. Only serious legal reforms, checks on corruption within government bodies, and proper delivery of justice can revolutionize our society, change the mindset of people, and help us stay true to the spirit of our Constitution. This case is one of many. Innumerable incidents like this happen every day but get swept under the rug. Because of the coverage of this case by the media on such a large scale, the people are becoming less ignorant and more assertive in voicing their opinions, which is of utmost importance in a democracy. Without dissent and activism, the very basis of a nation crumbles. I would like to conclude my paper with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. – “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
[1] Nimisha Srivastava, The Pune Porsche Case: Unpacking the Law on Bail, the ‘Essay’ and the Child-Adult Question, P39A Criminal Law Blog (May 29, 2024), https://p39ablog.com/2024/05/the-pune-porsche-case/#:~:text=The%20judgement%20goes%20on%20to,or%20put%20him%20in%20danger
[2] Abhishek Gupta, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Samisti legal (May 18, 2023), https://samistilegal.in/juvenile-justice-care-and-protection-of-children-act-2015/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20rapists%20in,of%20the%20JJ%20Act%2C%202015
[3] Mrityunjay Bose, Pune Porsche case: Long arm and loopholes of law, Deccan Herald (Last Updated: 01 June 2024, 06:48 IST), https://www.deccanherald.com/india/maharashtra/pune-porsche-case-long-arm-and-loopholes-of-law-3047424
[4] TOI City Desk, Pune Porsche crash case: Here is everything that has happened in the probe so far, The Times of India (Updated: Jun 11, 2024, 18:10 IST), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/pune-porsche-crash-case-here-is-everything-that-has-happened-in-the-probe-so-far/articleshow/110901146.cms
[5] Arkapriya Ghosh, THE NIRBHAYA CASE: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF A LANDMARK VERDICT, THE LEX TIMES (December 2023), https://www.thelextimes.com/the-nirbhaya-case-legal-analysis-of-a-landmark-verdict/#:~:text=The%20case%20prompted%20the%20enactment,response%20to%20a%20horrific%20crime
[6] Aneesha Mathur, 2016 Mercedes hit-and-run case accused killed man 4 days before turning 18, SC says he will be tried as juvenile, India Today (UPDATED: Jan 9, 2020 17:54 IST), https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/2016-mercedes-hit-and-run-case-accused-killed-man-4-days-before-turning-18-sc-says-he-will-be-tried-as-juvenile-1635379-2020-01-09
[7] Simer Chawla, Kanpur minor detained in hit-and-run case, was out on bail in similar incident, India Today (UPDATED: May 23, 2024 20:09 IST), https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/kanpur-teen-ran-over-2-persons-in-october-now-hits-4-more-people-detained-2542934-2024-05-23
[8] Uri Gneezy, Stephan Meier, Pedro Rey-Biel, When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior, Journal of Economic Perspectives – Vol. 25, No. 4 (FALL 2011), https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.25.4.191
AUTHOR:
Parnika Karmakar
Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College, Calcutta University