Pune Porsche Case: The Loopholes in the Legal Framework of Our Justice System

In India, one out of three news items, in our daily lives, revolve around road accidents and the deaths induced by such accidents. If we go through the data of 2022, a government report says that a total of 4,61,312 road accidents have been reported by states and union territories (UTs) during the calendar year 2022, claiming 1,68,491 lives and causing injuries to 4,43,366 people. Notably, the number of road accidents in 2022 increased by 11.9 percent compared to the year 2021. 'Aneesh Cremated 52 Hrs After Death, Killer Let Out in 15': Pune Victim's FamilyRecently, there was outrage all across the country pertaining to an accident where a luxury Porsche car killed two individuals in Pune on 19 May. The case was highlighted for two reasons, one because the accused was a minor and allegedly intoxicated, and second, because he belongs to a well-off family based in Pune and was driving a luxury Porsche car.In addition to this, the outrage also pertained to the fact that the Juvenile Board had granted bail to the accused along with a condition under the head of “community service”, where the accused was asked to write an essay on road accidents and safety, and he was also asked to assist the Traffic Police for a period of 15 days.The Board also directed the minor's parents to ensure that he does not engage in similar offences in the future, undergoes counselling, seeks help to quit drinking, and is kept away from bad company. 'Aneesh Cremated 52 Hrs After Death, Killer Let Out in 15': Pune Victim's FamilyIt is pertinent to note that now, the Juvenile Justice Board of Pune has cancelled the bail granted to the accused and remanded him to an observation home till 5 June. Like any other hit-and-run case, in this too, the accused was booked under Section 304A which talks about “death by negligence”. In this particular case, the accused was a minor (17 years and eight months) and was handed over to police, and then to the Juvenile Justice Board.Needless to state, Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is a bailable offence, and therefore, no court can refuse bail to the accused and in most cases, the accused is given bail through bonds in the police station itself. If we go by the facts of the case that is in question, the accused will probably be tried as a minor, because even under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 (JJ Act), there’s a provision with regard to age verification and assessment of a Child in Conflict with Law (CFL) and if the accused is said to be mentally stable then he will be tried as an adult, and not a juvenile. In such cases, when the offender is a minor, then according to the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, the guardian or the owner of the motor vehicle will be held responsible/liable for the act done by the minor/juvenile, and the minor will only face the fine and penalties prescribed under the Act. The maximum punishment prescribed is three years, along with a fine of Rs 25,000, and the cancellation of the motor registration of the vehicle owner. The accused, who’s the son of a prominent builder based in Pune, allegedly lost control of his Porsche under the influence of alcohol and killed two individuals who were travelling on a motorcycle. The punishment prescribed for Section 304A is three years, which automatically means that there can be no arrest in such cases till the trial proceeds, and if we go by the data, then a trial in India takes a lot of time. Although, in this case, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused under the following sections: As reported by Livelaw, the juvenile's father has also been booked under Sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act which pertain to wilful neglect and supplying intoxicating substances to a minor respectively. The father allegedly allowed the accused minor, who did not have a valid driving license, to drive the car and permitted him to attend a party despite being aware of his drinking habits. A court in Pune has now remanded him to police custody for two days. According to the Act, in cases where a juvenile or Child in Conflict with Law (CFL) is arrested, then the concerned investigative agencies have to file a charge sheet within 30 days of the arrest to consider them as an adult. After it is filed, the psychological and social assessments along with a de-addiction test are conducted which takes a period of two to three months. In this piece, my attempt is to analyse how the fault is in our own "cars", i.e., the law of the land, which actually prescribes a very lenient and “bailable” offence in such hit-and-run cases. In the present case, the accused is a minor and was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board in pursuance of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015. Section 2 Clause 13 of the Act defines “Child in Conflict with Law” – as a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who is not 18 years old on the date of commission of such offences. With regard to his custody and further investigation, the accused will be treated as a minor during the process of inquiry which is clear in terms of Section 6 of the Act, which states that if “any person, who has completed eighteen years of age, and is apprehended for committing an offence when he was below the age of eighteen years, then, such person shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be treated as a child during the process of inquiry.” Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 in India, the process to determine whether a minor can be tried as an adult involves several steps. The Act distinguishes between children in conflict with the law based on the nature of the offence and the age of the child.Here's an outline of the process: Age verification and categorisation: The first step is determining the age of the accused (minor) at the time of the alleged offence. There are majorly two age groups — one of those who are below 16 years of age, who are generally tried by the Juvenile Board and are not sent to adult courts, and another like the Pune incident, i.e., children who are aged between 16 to 18 years. In such cases, there’s a possibility that the accused might be tried as an adult if the crime is heinous in nature. Categorisation of offences under the JJ Act: Under the Act, the offences are classified into three categories, namely Petty Offences - which involve minor offences, Serious Offences – which are somehow between petty and heinous offences, and lastly Heinous Offences – which entail a minimum punishment of seven years of imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code. Preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act: This states that under the JJ Act, for children aged between 16 to 18 years who are accused of heinous offences, the Juvenile Justice Board conducts a preliminary assessment. This assessment is critical in deciding whether the child should be tried as an adult. In the said assessment, the minor’s mental and physical capacity is determined along with the ability to understand the consequences of the alleged offence committed. As mentioned above, the Juvenile Board is required to complete this assessment within a period of three months since the accused child was first produced before the board. What happens if the minor has to be treated as an adult: After the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, if the Juvenile Board decides that the child should be tried as an adult, the case is transferred to the Children's Court, which is a designated court for trying such cases. The Children's Court has the authority to conduct the trial in the same manner as for adults, but it also takes into consideration the child's age and the possibility to reform. If the minor is to be treated as an adult, then the trial is conducted following the procedure applicable to adults, ensuring a fair and just trial. Lastly, if found guilty, the Children's Court may order the child to be sent to a place of safety until they turn 21, after which, the individual can be transferred to an adult prison to serve the remaining term, if necessary. The outrage was about how a 17-year-old boy was released on bail within 15 hours of being detained for reportedly running over and killing individuals with his Porsche.Needless to say, the accident was heinous and disastrous, and we lost two individuals to the accident, but at the same time, we need to understand that the loophole is in our own law, and not because of the position of the parties (with regard to this particular accident), because the offences under which the accused has been charged are petty, and table 1.0 reflects that the maximum punishment is three years. For example, the government brought in new criminal laws and there were large-scale protests against the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), which included stricter penalties for such hit-and-run cases. The updated laws had imposed up to 10 years of imprisonment (which is two years under the present law) and a fine up to Rs seven lakh rupees for drivers who cause any serious accident due to negligent driving. Ultimately, the government had to take a step back.Hence, the fault lies in our “cars” – the legal framework which drives our daily lives. Even though we have enough laws, strict implementation is still a problem. Are there no bars serving alcohol to minors? Are there no vendors selling cigarettes to minors? We all know that these things happen but the checks-and-balances only come into play when there is public outrage. (Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practicing at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)

BECOME A MEMBER

Pune Porsche Case: The Loopholes in the Legal Framework of Our Justice System

Section 304A of the IPC is a bailable offence, and therefore, most of the accused get out on bail in such cases.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: Pune