Latest news with #AneeshAwadhiya
Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Indian Express
Porsche crash case: After JJB ruling, what next for minor, possible outcomes
THE Juvenile Justice Board in Pune on Tuesday rejected the city police's plea to try the minor accused in the Porsche crash case as an adult. So what course will the proceedings now take? How will the prosecution pursue their case and where does the law stand if the child is found to be in conflict with the law or otherwise? The chronology at the JJB In the early hours of May 19 last year, the then 17-year-old minor was allegedly driving the Porsche Taycan at a high speed while he was intoxicated when the car crashed into a bike killing two software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. He was detained and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) the same afternoon. Police sought his custody in an observation home and requested he be tried as an adult, but the JJB rejected both pleas and granted bail with conditions, including writing an essay, studying traffic norms, and undergoing de-addiction counselling. Amid public outcry, Pune Police challenged the order in district court, which sent the matter back to the JJB. On May 22, the JJB remanded the minor to an observation home until June, with psychological and de-addiction counselling included in his rehabilitation. His initial remand ended June 5 and was extended to June 12. Police then sought another 14-day extension, while the defence requested his release to family. After hearing both sides, the JJB extended the remand to June 25. However, the Bombay High Court, responding to a habeas corpus plea from his aunt, ruled the remand illegal and ordered the minor's release into her care. The minor has turned 18 in the later half of 2024. How will the case proceed now? If after a preliminary assessment, the JJB were to pass an order that there is a need for the minor to be tried as an adult, then the case would be referred to a designated Children's Court. However, now that the JJB has rejected the plea, future proceedings will be held under section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which pertains to 'Inquiry by JJB regarding child in conflict with law', which is similar to the trial. A lawyer who has practiced at the JJB for several years, said, 'This inquiry by the JJB is conducted in ways which are similar to a regular trial. Now the arguments will be held on the charges. Subsequently there will be framing of charges where the minor is asked whether he pleads guilty or nor guilty. Then witnesses are called. The examination-in-chief and cross examination of these witnesses is held.' The lawyer added, 'When the minor is initially produced before the JJB, a Social Investigation Report is prepared by a probation officer, comprising family background of the child and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the JJB for making the inquiry. This report along with a report from the counsellors forms a key basis of the order of the JJB, this is where the inquiry is different than a trial.' The three member JJB is headed by a magistrate with at least three years experience and two social workers, of whom at least one is a woman. When contacted, the minor's lawyer, advocate Prashant Patil said, 'In the next hearing of the JJB we expect to hold arguments over the charges. We are expecting an independent and fair proceeding without getting affected by the allegations coming from the media trial and only on the basis of evidence collected by the investigation agency.' Outcomes of the inquiry If the JJB finds that the child is not in conflict with law, order is passed accordingly. The JJB may find the child in conflict with law based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, under section 18 of JJ Act. The JJB can pass the following orders — Allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following the appropriate inquiry and counselling. — Direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities. — Order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution. — Order the child or the parents or the guardian of the child to pay a fine. Direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent or guardian. — Direct the child to be released on probation into the care of a facility for any period not exceeding three years. — Direct the child to be sent to a special home, for a period not exceeding three years, for providing reformative services and psychiatric support. Will appeal, need for wider debate: Special Prosecutor Special Public Prosecutor advocate Shishir Hiray said, 'We will be filing an appeal against the JJB ruling in the stipulated time period of 30 days. We are thoroughly studying the orders. We are also holding discussions with the investigation agency, senior police officers and the Law and Judiciary department of the government.' Hiray added, 'However this entire case and ongoing legal proceedings are crucial in multiple ways. First, as we have argued time again, that in this case attempts were made to change the entire course of justice delivery by tampering with the evidence. Going a step further, there is a need for a much wider national level debate on what constitutes a heinous crime under the provisions of the JJ Act and the provisions surrounding that aspect.'
Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Indian Express
Porsche car crash: JJB rejects police plea for trying 17 yr old minor driver as an adult
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has today rejected the application by the Pune city police seeking an order that the minor accused in the Porsche car crash be tried as an adult. Two IT engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and his friend Ashwini Koshta, both aged 24 and hailing from Madhya Pradesh, were killed after the speeding Porsche driven by a 17-year-old boy allegedly in an inebriated state hit their motorcycle around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024. Same day, a first information report (FIR) was lodged against the minor car driver at the Yerwada police station. Subsequently, citing sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Pune city police filed an application at JJB, seeking an order that the child in conflict with law (CCL) be tried as an adult in this case. Prosecution had argued that CCL (minor car driver) accused committed a 'heinous offence' and was driving the Porsche car after consuming liquor despite knowing its consequences The defence lawyer opposed the application saying the present offence cannot be legally termed as 'heinous. The defence lawyer had also argued that the object of Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act is 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. A senior police officer confirmed that the JJB today passed an order in favour of the CCL. Earlier, when police had detained the minor and produced him before the JJB on May 19, he was granted by the JJB on conditions that he would 'write an essay of 300 words' on 'topic in effect of road accidents and their solutions', assist RTO officers and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days. But, following a public uproar, the minor was sent to an observation home on May 22. Apparently, the police again submitted applications at the JJB on May 21 and May 22, for trying the CCL as an adult. The minor's paternal aunt had then moved a plea before the high court (HC) and sought his release, claiming that as per the JJ Act 2015, it needs to be ensured that any conflict with the law does not result in him turning into a hardened criminal. On June 25, the HC ordered the minor's release and that he be handed over into the care of his paternal aunt. Subsequently, the minor was released from the observation home. Meanwhile, the police investigation had revealed that when the minor driver, who is son of a prominent realtor, was taken to the government-run Sassoon Hospital after the accident for a medical examination, his blood sample was allegedly replaced with his mother's. A police probe also confirmed that blood samples of the two friends of the minor driver, who were in the Porsche at the time of the accident, were also swapped at Sassoon hospital. Police arrested and chargesheeted ten persons including the minor's parents, Dr Ajay Taware, the then head of the Forensic Medicine Department of Sassoon Hospital, Dr Shrihari Halnor, the casualty medical officer at the time, Atul Ghatkamble, a morgue staff and others. They are booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304, 279, 338, 337, 427, 120 (b), 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 and sections of the Motor Vehicle Act and Prevention of Corruption Act. Special public prosecutor (SPP) Shishir Hiray had argued at the JJB that minor accused had been booked under IPC sections 467 (forgery) and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which attract punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to ten year. 'So he has committed a 'heinous offence' as per section 2 (33) of JJ Act, which says that offences having punishment of imprisonment for seven years or more are 'heinous', Hiray had argued. Prosecution had submitted that in case of a heinous offence, as per section 15 (1) of JJ Act, the JJB shall conduct a preliminary assessment of a minor's mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the said crime. Prosecution submitted that after the preliminary assessment under section 15 (1), the JJB can, under section 18 (3) of the JJ Act, pass an order for trial of the minor as an adult. SPP Hiray had argued before the JJB the actual driver of the Porsche had asked the minor not to drive the car. 'But still the minor drove the Porsche after consuming liquor and committed the crime. He knew the consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was present at the Sassoon hospital when his blood samples were swapped. He knew swapping blood samples was a crime. So he was aware of the consequences of the offence and should be tried as an adult,' Hiray had said. Defence lawyer Prashant Patil submitted before the JJB that the CCL has no prior criminal record and the Porsche crash incident, though unfortunate, arose out of a moment of poor judgement, not criminal intention. Citing a Supreme Court judgement in Shilpa Mittal versus State of Delhi case, Patil had claimed that the present offence may not legally qualify as 'heinous' and hence section (15) of JJ Act should not be invoked in this case. Patil had also submitted that as per section 2 (12) of JJ Act, any person below the age of 18 years is considered a child. Patil argued the goal of juvenile justice is to 'rehabilitate' and not to punish the minor in the same way as for adults.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
15-07-2025
- First Post
Why 17-yr-old Pune Porsche crash driver, who killed 2, won't be tried as adult
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) dismissed the Pune city police's application for the minor accused in the Porsche car crash in Pune last year that killed two techies to be tried as an adult. The boy, who was 17 years old at the time, allegedly hit the bike of the victims while driving his father's car in an inebriated state. What does India's law say about trying minors as adults? read more The Porsche car that was allegedly driven by a 17-year-old boy who knocked down two motorbike riders on May 19, 2024, causing their death in Kalyani Nagar of Pune city. File Photo/PTI The minor accused in the Porsche car crash in Pune last May that killed two people will not be tried as an adult, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) said on Tuesday (July 15). The teenager, who was 17 years old at the time of the accident, will face trial as a juvenile. Software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both aged 24, were killed by the speeding Porsche, allegedly driven by the accused minor in an inebriated state. The duo was on a motorcycle around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024, when the incident took place. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The case had created a national uproar over its handling by the authorities. Let's take a closer look. Pune Porsche crash case The main accused was driving his father's Rs 2.5 crore Porsche last May when he allegedly hit the bike of the two IT professionals, both hailing from Madhya Pradesh, in Pune's Kalyani Nagar. As per reports, the teenager, the son of a prominent Pune businessman, was out partying, 'celebrating' exam results. He was allegedly drunk at the time of the accident. An FIR was lodged against the minor on the same day at the Yerwada police station. He was detained on May 19, 2024 and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. The case stirred widespread outrage after the JJB granted bail to the minor on the conditions that he would 'write an essay of 300 words' on 'topic in effect of road accidents and their solutions', help RTO officers and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days. After the backlash, the accused was sent to an observation home on May 22, 2024. However, in June, the Bombay High Court ordered the minor's release and directed that he be sent into the care of his paternal aunt, who had moved a plea for his release. The local police had also come under scrutiny for allegedly mishandling crucial evidence to ensure the teenager's release. As per a police probe, the blood samples of the accused were replaced with his mother's at the government-run Sassoon Hospital to conceal that he was allegedly drunk at the time of the accident. The mother was arrested for tampering with evidence, but was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in April this year. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The boy's father, doctors Ajay Taware and Shrihari Halnor, hospital employee Atul Ghatkamble, and two middlemen are in prison in connection with the case. Minor won't be tried as an adult Last year, the Pune police submitted applications before the Juvenile Justice Board to try the main accused – the child in conflict with law (CCL) – as an adult. The special prosecution argued that the teenager was booked under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 467 (forgery) for alleged tampering of blood samples. '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,' Special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray told the board. '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,' he submitted. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD '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. However, defence lawyer Prashant Patil opposed the prosecutor's application for the accused to be tried as an adult. He argued that the offence cannot be legally termed 'heinous'. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, Patil submitted before the board that the object of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act is 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. 'The board must consider the child's potential for reform. Trying him as an adult would go against the spirit of juvenile justice,' he said. Now, the JJB has rejected the Pune City Police's request for the accused teenager to be tried as an adult. #BreakingNews | #Pune Porsche Case | The plea filed by Pune Police that the CCL (Child in Conflict with Law) should be tried as an adult has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board.@kotakyesha @ShivaniGupta_5 — News18 (@CNNnews18) July 15, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What do India's laws say? The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015), which replaced the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, provides that minors in the age group of 16-18 be tried as adults in cases of heinous offences. It is a crime for which the minimum punishment is seven years in jail. Section 15 of the JJ Act states that the Juvenile Justice Board is required to 'conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence', before determining whether the accused child needs to be tried as an adult. According to Section 18 (3) of the Act, if the Board orders that there is a need for the trial of the child as an adult, then it can transfer the case to the Children's Court having jurisdiction over such crimes. Before the 2015 amendment to the act, all children below the age of 18 years were treated as juveniles. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's legal drinking age differs across states, ranging from 18 to 25 years. Some states, such as Bihar, Nagaland, Gujarat and Manipur, have completely banned alcohol. For minors, no amount of alcohol in the blood while driving is considered legal. If they commit an offence, their guardian or the owner of the vehicle they were driving will face legal consequences. They can be imprisoned for up to three years and have to pay a fine of Rs 25,000. The registration of the vehicle involved will be cancelled for 12 months. If the minor has a driving licence, it will be suspended and not granted till they are 25 years old. In the case of adults, private vehicle owners can have a legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit of 30mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. This limit is zero for commercial vehicle drivers. As per the law, if drink driving by an adult leads to injury to another person, the offender can be jailed for up to two years. If the other person dies, the driver may face imprisonment for two to seven years and a hefty fine. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
Indian Express
15-07-2025
- Indian Express
Pune Porsche case: Juvenile Justice Board rejects police plea, 17-year-old accused to be tried as minor
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on Tuesday rejected the Pune city police's application seeking that the minor accused in the Porsche car crash be tried as an adult. Two software engineers, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both aged 24 and hailing from Madhya Pradesh, were killed after the speeding Porsche, allegedly driven by a 17-year-old boy in an inebriated state, hit their motorcycle around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024. On the same day, an FIR was lodged against the minor at the Yerwada police station. Subsequently, citing sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Pune city police filed an application before the JJB, seeking that the child in conflict with law (CCL) be tried as an adult in this case. A senior police officer confirmed that the JJB passed an order in favour of the CCL. The prosecution had argued that the CCL had committed a 'heinous offence' and was driving the Porsche car after consuming liquor despite knowing its consequences The defence lawyer opposed the application, saying the present offence cannot be legally termed 'heinous', and also argued that the object of the Act is 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. Earlier, when the police had detained the minor and produced him before the JJB on May 19, 2024 he was granted bail on the conditions that he would 'write an essay of 300 words' on 'topic in effect of road accidents and their solutions', assist RTO officers and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days. But, following a public uproar, the minor was sent to an observation home on May 22, 2024. The police submitted applications at the JJB on May 21 and May 22 for trying the CCL as an adult. The minor's paternal aunt had then moved a plea before the high court and sought his release, claiming that as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, it needs to be ensured that any conflict with the law does not result in him turning into a hardened criminal. On June 25, the high court ordered the minor's release and that he be handed over into the care of his paternal aunt. Subsequently, the minor was released from the observation home. Meanwhile, the police investigation had revealed that when the minor, who is the son of a prominent realtor, was taken to the government-run Sassoon Hospital after the accident for a medical examination, his blood sample was allegedly replaced with his mother's. A police probe also confirmed that blood samples of the two friends of the minor driver, who were in the Porsche at the time of the accident, were also swapped at Sassoon Hospital. The police have arrested and charged 10 people, including the minor's parents; Dr Ajay Taware, the then head of the forensic medicine department of Sassoon Hospital; Dr Shrihari Halnor, the casualty medical officer at the time; Atul Ghatkamble, a morgue staff; and others. They are booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray had argued at the JJB that the minor had been booked under IPC sections 467 (forgery) and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which attract punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to 10 years. 'So he has committed a 'heinous offence' as per section 2 (33) of JJ Act, which says that offences having punishment of imprisonment for seven years or more are 'heinous',' Hiray had argued. Defence lawyer Prashant Patil had submitted before the JJB that the CCL has no prior criminal record and the Porsche crash incident, though unfortunate, arose out of a moment of poor judgement, not criminal intention. Citing a Supreme Court judgement in Shilpa Mittal versus State of Delhi case, Patil had claimed that the present offence may not legally qualify as 'heinous' and hence Section (15) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act should not be invoked in this case. Patil had also submitted that as per section 2 (12) of the Act, any person below the age of 18 years is considered a child. Patil argued that the goal of juvenile justice was to 'rehabilitate' and not to punish the minor in the same way as adults.
NDTV
15-07-2025
- NDTV
Pune Porsche Crash Left 2 Dead. Drunk Driver, 17, Won't Be Tried As Adult
New Delhi: The main accused in the Pune Porsche crash case - in which an allegedly drunk teenager rammed his father's Rs 2.5 crore electric supercar into a two-wheeler and killed two software professionals - cannot be tried as an adult now, despite having crossed that threshold, the Juvenile Justice Board has said. The main accused - out 'celebrating' exam results by heavy underage drinking, and running up a bill of Rs 48,000 in just 90 minutes - was 17 years old at the time of the tragic incident; he was four months short of the legal age for driving and eight years shy of Maharashtra's legal drinking age, which is 25. The crash, and the death of Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both from Madhya Pradesh and both just 24, led to outrage, particularly since the accused is the son of a prominent Pune businessman and the local police were accused of deliberately mishandling critical evidence to ensure his release. This included feeding him burgers immediately after the crash to hide or dilute the alcohol in his bloodstream. Local police reportedly also did not alert their superiors, as required to by law. There were also questions asked of the medical professionals involved, including doctors tasked with extracting and securing samples from the accused to test for blood alcohol levels. CCTV footage of the Pune Porsche car crash case accused at a city bar. It soon transpired the blood samples had been replaced with those of his mother - who was arrested and then released in April - in a crude attempt to conceal the fact he was driving while drunk. And finally the Juvenile Justice Board itself faced scrutiny after allowing the boy bail 15 hours after the crash. The conditions imposed - one was to write a 300-word essay - were slammed as 'ridiculous'. READ | With 7 Conditions, Teen Porsche Driver Got Bail On Grandad's Say Faced with backlash over these conditions, the JJB then directed the boy be placed in the custody of state authorities. However, this order was countered by the Bombay High Court. Last year Pune Police had sought permission to try the main accused - the others included members of his family for trying to destroy evidence - as an adult, citing his "heinous" act. In May, exactly a year after the crash, and with no sign of justice for his son Anish, Om Awadhiya said, "Our son is no longer with us; nothing can compensate for that loss, but justice would send a strong message against drunk driving and those who believe money and power put them above the law." "This entire year has been painful for me, my wife, and our whole family. Not a single day goes by without us remembering him and cherishing his beautiful memories. After Anish's tragic death, our world has come crashing down," Mr Awadhiya, who lives in Madhya Pradesh, said. At present the boy's father, doctors Ajay Taware and Shrihari Halnor, hospital employee Atul Ghatkamble, and two middlemen are in jail in connection with this case. The boy remains with his family.
