&w=3840&q=100)
Juvenille accused in Pune Porsche case tried to swap blood samples: Police
Press Trust of India Pune
The prosecution in the Pune Porsche case has told a court here that attempts were made to swap blood samples at a second hospital to save the juvenile accused, but it wasn't successful.
Submitting additional documents under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution said that the Pune police, which first got blood samples of the minor collected at the Sassoon Hospital, suspected that there was a possibility of tampering.
The police then got the teenager's blood samples collected at the Aundh Government Hospital as a pre-emptive measure, but some of the other accused, including his parents, got a whiff of it, the police informed the court on Tuesday.
The accused persons approached the Aundh hospital authorities to swap the samples, but the doctors there refused to cooperate and turned them away, the prosecution claimed.
On May 19, 2024, a Porsche car allegedly driven by a 17-year-old boy in an inebriated condition fatally mowed down two IT professionals, Anish Awadhiya and Ashwini Costa, in Pune's Kalyani Nagar area.
Subsequent investigations showed that his blood samples were swapped with those of his mother at the Sassoon Hospital to conceal the minor's alleged intoxicated state at the time of the crash.
In the same manner in which they tampered with blood samples at Sassoon Hospital, the parents of the juvenile and middleman Ashpak Makandar tried to do so at the Aundh hospital too. But doctors refused to entertain them, said a crime branch officer.
In the alleged sample swapping matter at Sassoon Hospital, Dr Ajay Taware, head of the forensic department, Medical Officer Shreehari Halnor, and a staffer, Atul Ghatkamble, came under scrutiny, resulting in their arrest.
Besides the three Sassoon staffers, the juvenile's father, middlemen Makandar and Amar Gaikwad, Aditya Avinash Sood, Ashish Mittal, and Arun Kumar Singh are currently in jail in connection with the alleged blood sample swap.
Arguments are currently being made in the court concerning the framing of charges. Section 173(8) of the CrPC allows for further investigation of an offence even after a chargesheet has already been submitted.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
10 hours ago
- Business Standard
Jail up to 7 yrs, ₹5 lakh fine key features of cleared Maha security bill
Imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh, classification of offences registered under it as cognisable and non-bailable are key features of a special bill passed by the Maharashtra legislature to curb activities of Left-wing extremist organisations. The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, passed in the council on Friday and in the assembly on Thursday, introduced strict measures against individuals and organisations involved in activities declared as "unlawful." It will come into force on receiving the Governor's assent. The most serious offences, such as committing, abetting, or planning unlawful activities on behalf of such organisations, are punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh. Since all offences under the law are cognisable and non-bailable, police can arrest individuals without a warrant, and courts are not obliged to grant bail, stated the bill. These actions are punishable with imprisonment ranging from two to seven years. Even individuals who are not members (of outfits banned under the new legislation), but are found to be contributing money, soliciting funds, or sheltering members of such organisations can face up to two years in jail and a fine of up to Rs 2 lakh, it stated. The bill allows the government to designate any organisation as unlawful if it is found to disrupt public order, incite violence, promote disobedience to law, or interfere with communication systems. Once an organisation is declared unlawful, the state is empowered to take possession of its properties, seize its assets, and prohibit access to its funds, it said. Offences under the bill include being a member of an unlawful organisation, attending or promoting its meetings, helping to manage its affairs, or participating in any unlawful activities linked to the organisation. It authorises the government to take strict action against properties and financial resources of unlawful organisations. This includes taking over buildings used by these groups, evicting those occupying such spaces, confiscating movable property found at those locations, and freezing or forfeiting organisational funds. Before an organisation is officially declared unlawful, the government's decision must be reviewed and approved by an advisory board constituted under the bill. The declaration comes into effect only after the board gives its clearance. The law also limits the role of courts in challenging the government's actions under this legislation. Judicial review is barred except in matters related to the forfeiture of funds, which may only be contested before the High Court, the bill said. Despite criticism, the BJP-led Mahayuti government has defended the need for such a stringent bill, arguing it will enable more effective action against threats to public order specific to the state. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
Complainant in Dharmasthala case appears before court
Mangaluru: The complainant who claimed to have buried several bodies in Dharmasthala under duress, appeared before a court in Belthangady on Friday. With his face covered in a mask, he had his statements recorded before the magistrate. His advocates, Ojaswi Gowda and Sachin Deshpande, later issued a statement, saying: "The complainant in the Dharmasthala mass burials case was taken to the court of the principal civil judge and JMFC, Belthangady taluk, today for recording of his statement under Section 183 of BNSS (Section 164 of the CrPC)." The advocates added the court did not agree to the presence of the lawyers and recorded the complainant's statements in their absence. In another statement, advocates Gowda and Deshpande further said the complainant was duly granted cover and protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. "A communication to this effect was sent to us on the evening of July 10 by the authorities concerned. The complainant conveys his gratitude to the district judiciary, Dakshina Kannada, district police, and the govt of Karnataka for acting expeditiously on his request for witness protection," the advocates said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 東京のシニア夫婦が続々購入 "プレミアムプレハブ住宅" - 驚きの支払い総額 プレハブ住宅 | 検索広告 Undo Earlier, the complainant, who reportedly worked as a sanitation worker at Dharmasthala, had told the police he was forced to secretly bury multiple dead bodies under pressure from influential quarters. Based on this complaint and after obtaining necessary permission from the court, a case was registered at Dharmasthala police station on July 4, under Section 211(a) of the BNS. The complainant expressed his willingness to expose those behind the crimes and disclose the locations where the bodies were buried, provided there was legal protection for him and his family.
New Indian Express
10 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Dharmasthala mass burial case: Complainant records statement before court
MANGALURU: The ex-sanitation worker who claimed to have buried hundreds of bodies in Dharmasthala village appeared before Belthangady court in Dakshina Kannada on Friday. The complainant recorded his statement under Section 183 of BNSS (Section 164 of CrPC). Advocates Ojaswi Gowda and Sachin Deshpande representing the complainant, in a press communique, said that they were firmly and clearly instructed by the complainant beforehand that one of them should be present in the Court while he makes his statements to the Court. "He is illiterate and has never been to a court before, so he had expressed serious difficulty with the process. We clearly informed the Court about this aspect. However, the Court did not agree to the presence of the advocates and commenced the recording of the complainant's statements in our absence," they said. The advocates further said that the complainant in the Dharmasthala mass burials case has been duly granted cover and protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
