This was the case, the number plate was not on the car
According to the FIR, on Sunday, a 17-year-old son of a wealthy builder from Pune drove a Porsche car at a speed of 200 km under the influence of alcohol and hit a motorcycle in Kalyani Nagar area with the uncontrolled car. As a result, two people riding the motorcycle died on the spot. There was no number plate on the Porsche car at the time of the incident.
FIR filed under these sections, understand each one
Now, first of all, to understand the case, we have to understand the sections that the police have imposed while registering the FIR. According to Supreme Court Advocate Anil Singh Srinet, Indian Penal Code i.e. IPC sections 304-A (causing death by negligence), 279 (dangerous driving), 337 (endangering life and minor hurt). And 338 (endangering someone’s life, causing fracture etc.), 427 (causing damage to property by vehicle). At the same time, sections 184 (dangerous driving), 119 (disobeying traffic signs) and 177 (general provisions for offences) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Apart from this, a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been registered under section 304 of the IPC. Whereas a case of dangerous driving has also been registered under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act. There is no speed related section here.
Will Nirbhaya get benefits like the gangrape accused?
According to Advocate Anil Singh Srinet, under the existing laws, if the accused is below 18 years of age, he/she will be tried under the Juvenile Justice Act. In such cases, he/she will be kept in a juvenile home for a maximum of 3 years. At the same time, in the Pune Porsche case, under Section 304-A, the accused can be kept there for a maximum of 2 years. One of the accused in the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape case was a minor. he/she was sentenced to only 3 years. However, at that time the law was also helpless, because it prescribed only the same punishment for a minor.
Section 15 and 18 (3) of Juvenile Act only deciding
According to Advocate Anil Singh Srinet, if the Juvenile Justice Board, after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2019, considers the crime of the accused serious, then the accused should be tried as an adult under Section 18 (3). Can order to leave. This can happen in Pune Porsche case also. In such a situation, this case will proceed in the trial court. This decision will depend on the Juvenile Board.
In the Pune Porsche car accident case, if the accused is tried as a minor, then he/she can be kept in a juvenile home for a maximum of 2 years. Its entire responsibility now rests on the Juvenile Board, which can decide whether the accused should be tried as an adult.
Anil Singh Shrinet, Advocate Supreme Court
If considered an adult, the punishment can be up to 10 years
According to Advocate Anil Singh Srinet, if the accused is tried as an adult, then Section 304 of IPC will have to be registered in the FIR instead of Section 304-A. Because the maximum punishment under 304-A is 2 years. Even under sections 337 and 338, the maximum punishment is 2 years each. At the same time, if the case is prosecuted under Section 304, the accused can face jail up to 10 years and fine.
What is the difference between Section 304 and 304-A of IPC?
Under Section 304 of the IPC, it is seen that if the accused caused any death and the accused knew that any of his/her acts could cause death, then he/she can be punished with life imprisonment or 10 years of jail and fine. At the same time, if any act of the accused has caused the death of someone else, but he/she did not know that his/her act would cause death, then it will be considered as culpable homicide. In such a situation, the punishment can be 10 years in jail or fine or both. This is a non-bailable offence. At the same time, under 304-A, there is a provision of two years in jail and fine for death due to negligence. This is a bailable offence.
Opinion: 300 word article and bail to the person who murdered 2… what kind of justice is this?
Important changes were made in the law after Nirbhaya
Advocate Anil Singh Srinet says that the Pune Porsche case should also be registered under section 304 of the IPC. A change was made in the law in 2013 after the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape case. The Criminal (Amendment) Act, 2013 stated that if a minor is around 18 years of age, he/she can be tried as an adult. But, before doing so, the nature of the crime has to be seen as to how serious and heinous the crime is and in such a case, there is a need to impose a punishment of more than 7 years.
In 2016, the minor was tried as an adult.
It was April 4, 2016, when a case of hit and run involving a Mercedes came to light in Delhi. In this, the 16 year old accused had rammed a Mercedes on a marketing executive, due to which he/she died. In the hearing of the case in June, the Juvenile Justice Board had said that the accused had committed a serious crime. At the time of the offence, the accused was mature enough to know that the consequences of driving in such a manner could be dangerous.
If the accused is seen as an adult in CCTV then why is there no bone test?
Advocate Anil Singh Srinet says that in the CCTV footage and video, the accused looks like an adult. he/she looks more than 18 years old. In such a situation, the police should also conduct ossification test, which is commonly called bone test, so that it can be found out what is the real age of the accused. However, High School Certificate or Birth Certificate is given more preference than any such test.
