Pune car accident case- The Real Truth
INTRODUCTION OF PUNE CAR ACCIDENT CASE
As a law man I was deeply following the recent Pune case which faced a massive public outrage in recent times as we all know what had happened that night ,thus not going much into that let me cover it with my “LEGAL EYE”
BRIEF SYNOPSIS
A 17 Year teen to be more clear 17 years 8 months old, VEDANT AGARWAL was driving his crores “Porsche” car after clubbing and drinking alcohol at more than the speed of 200 km/hour at approximately 2:30 hours hit two I.T professionals named “ANISH AWADHIYA” and “ASHWINI KOSHTA” driving at lightning speed while he was into the influence of alcohol thus resulting it in life-threatening accident, and not just this the biggest turmoil to the society.
The people ask some common questions.
Does he get bail in 15 hours?
Is this an inevitable accident?
ACTS INVOLVED
- INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
- JUSTICE JUVENILE ACT 2000
- MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988
LEGAL SYNOPSIS
The First information report (F.I.R) reveals some shocking truths, TEEN WAS CHARGED WITH “304-A” and NOT with “304” section to save the teen from the consequences of section “304”
WHAT IS SECTION 304 and 304-A ?
Section 304 says that culpable homicide not amounting to murder means whosoever with the intention and knowledge causes the death of a person should be liable for life imprisonment or imprisonment which can be extended up to 10 years or a fine or both
Where 304-A, under which the F.I.R is registered says that causing death by negligence or not amounting to culpable homicide (which means having no knowledge and intention that the person’s act can cause death of a person) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
According to the YEVADE POLICE STATION, the 17 years 8-month-old teen was not known about –
What can drinking and driving cause?
What can a speeding car cause?
But he knows about
how to buy liquor even being underage.
- how to drive a car without attaining the legal age.
OTHER SECTIONS
INDIAN PENAL CODE
- Section 275 – Anyone found guilty of reckless or irresponsible driving that puts human life in peril may face legal repercussions.
- Section 304-A – Anyone found guilty of any reckless or thoughtless conduct that results in the death of another person but does not constitute culpable murder faces a maximum two-year sentence in either type of jail, a fine, or both.
- Section 337 – Anyone who harms another person by acting in a way that is so careless or reckless that it jeopardises human life or the personal safety of others faces a maximum sentence of six months in either type of jail, a maximum fine of five hundred rupees, or both.
- Section 427 – Someone who creates mischief and damages property worth fifty rupees or more will be punished with imprisonment for a maximum term of two years, a fine, or both.
MAHARASHTRA MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
- Section 184
- Section 119
- Section 177
BAIL CONDITIONS
Even after so many sections the juvenile justice board grants bail with conditions to Vedant Agarwal, to assist traffic police for 15 days and pen a 300-word essay on road accidents as his bail conditions. This decision has ignited widespread outrage, with many arguing that such lenient measures fail to deliver proper justice, especially considering the loss of two lives and the fact that the teen was driving illegally.
Why is bail granted?
On the basis of his father's status? Or any political pressure?
As a lawman, I must make you guys aware of what legally happened,
The answer is in “SECTION 12” OF “JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015” which says – When any person, who is a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offense, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or the care of any fit person.
PUBLIC OUTRAGE
On granting bail the police of Pune City saw a NATION WIDE. Public outrage thus police had to file an application stating that the crime done by Vedant Agarwal was under the category of “Heinous Offence” which simply means. If a person below the age of majority (18 years) commits a serious offence such as rape, murder, etc which includes the minimum punishment of imprisonment of 7 years or more shall be treated as an ADULT and not as a child.
ROLE OF 304-A to protect vedant Agarwal
To protect vedant’s act from falling under the definition of “heinous crime” the section 304-a comes in F.I.R instead of 304
- What if 304 was imposed ?
If section 304 was imposed which provides the punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment which can be extended up to 10 years or fine or both the act of Vedant Agarwal justified the heinous Offense definition and then he had been treated like an adult.
CONCLUSION
Teens like Vedant Agarwal are not solely to blame for such acts; rather, parents who intentionally grant their children such privileges but fail to instill morality in them should take the primary blame. This is because the legal system is limited, so parents should be held accountable for their children’s behaviour rather than the court system.
