PUNE: Porsche Taycan, the luxury sedan that mowed down two bike-borne techies in Pune, was being driven at 160kmph by the 17-year-old accused at the time of the crash, a panchnama of the vehicle revealed.
“A panchnama of the Porsche Taycan revealed that the car was being driven at a speed of 160kmph when it hit the motorcycle that resulted in the two deaths.The car’s speed lock has shown its last speed at the time of the dash,” Pune police commissioner Amitesh Kumar said.
On Sunday, Pune’s Juvenile Justice Board, while ordering the boy’s release on certain conditions, had rejected the police’s plea for his trial as an adult.
Kumar, while explaining the approach to the sessions court, told reporters, “It’s a heinous crime considering that the minor driver has admitted before the board about his addiction to liquor and yet he was driving the car without any eligibility to drive, and that too at a high speed.”
In the FIR,, the police have booked the teenager on charges under sections 304-A (causing death by rash and negligent driving), 279 (driving vehicle in a negligent manner), 337 & 338 (both relating to rash and negligent act endangering human life or personal safety of others) and 427 (mischief) of the Indian Penal Code. Besides, sections 119 (duty to obey traffic signs) and 184 (driving dangerously) of the Motor Vehicles Act were also slapped.
In case the court replaces Section 304-A with Section 304, the maximum punishment, in the event of a conviction, can be up to 10 years instead of two years as provided under Section 304-A. Sections 337 and 338 IPC also carry a maximum punishment of two years.
If the teenager is tried as a minor, then he can get away with a lesser sentence. If the sessions court clears the teenager’s trial as a major, then in case of a conviction, he can face a full term of punishment. While the police await the court’s nod, the teenager till then will face trial before the juvenile justice board after the police’s chargesheet post-investigation.
The builder’s lawyer, Prashant Patil, told TOI, “If the police have submitted any application in the court seeking changes in the IPC sections, we have not received any correspondence from the court. We can comment on this after receiving the communication.”
The police commissioner said, “We have collected enough evidence in the form of CCTV footage from the two pubs the teeenager visited by along with his four friends and the route he took from Mundhwa to reach the accident site, etc. The boy is seen drinking in the CCTV footage. We have now decided to invoke charges of drunk driving against him. The boy and his friends went to the first pub at 10.40pm and were served liquor there. However, they stepped out at 12.10am after the pub refused to serve liquor. They moved to the other nearby pub where they were upto 2am before starting for their home.”
Regarding the outcome of the boy’s blood sample tests, Kumar said, “Two separate tests were conducted — one on personal appearance, smell and walking and the other on blood sample. The blood sample tests are being conducted at two different facilities to ensure that there is no scope for managing any of these test reports. We are awaiting the blood sample test report before we make any further comment.”
A senior police officer, who did not wish to be named, told TOI, “The personal appearance test was conducted about eight hours after the accident and it came out negative.”
Asked about allegations of preferential treatment to the boy at the police station, Kumar said, “I am personally studying the CCTV footage of the police station. If any preferential treatment has been given to the boy, I will suspend the entire staff of the police station.”
“A panchnama of the Porsche Taycan revealed that the car was being driven at a speed of 160kmph when it hit the motorcycle that resulted in the two deaths.The car’s speed lock has shown its last speed at the time of the dash,” Pune police commissioner Amitesh Kumar said.
On Sunday, Pune’s Juvenile Justice Board, while ordering the boy’s release on certain conditions, had rejected the police’s plea for his trial as an adult.
Kumar, while explaining the approach to the sessions court, told reporters, “It’s a heinous crime considering that the minor driver has admitted before the board about his addiction to liquor and yet he was driving the car without any eligibility to drive, and that too at a high speed.”
In the FIR,, the police have booked the teenager on charges under sections 304-A (causing death by rash and negligent driving), 279 (driving vehicle in a negligent manner), 337 & 338 (both relating to rash and negligent act endangering human life or personal safety of others) and 427 (mischief) of the Indian Penal Code. Besides, sections 119 (duty to obey traffic signs) and 184 (driving dangerously) of the Motor Vehicles Act were also slapped.
In case the court replaces Section 304-A with Section 304, the maximum punishment, in the event of a conviction, can be up to 10 years instead of two years as provided under Section 304-A. Sections 337 and 338 IPC also carry a maximum punishment of two years.
If the teenager is tried as a minor, then he can get away with a lesser sentence. If the sessions court clears the teenager’s trial as a major, then in case of a conviction, he can face a full term of punishment. While the police await the court’s nod, the teenager till then will face trial before the juvenile justice board after the police’s chargesheet post-investigation.
The builder’s lawyer, Prashant Patil, told TOI, “If the police have submitted any application in the court seeking changes in the IPC sections, we have not received any correspondence from the court. We can comment on this after receiving the communication.”
The police commissioner said, “We have collected enough evidence in the form of CCTV footage from the two pubs the teeenager visited by along with his four friends and the route he took from Mundhwa to reach the accident site, etc. The boy is seen drinking in the CCTV footage. We have now decided to invoke charges of drunk driving against him. The boy and his friends went to the first pub at 10.40pm and were served liquor there. However, they stepped out at 12.10am after the pub refused to serve liquor. They moved to the other nearby pub where they were upto 2am before starting for their home.”
Regarding the outcome of the boy’s blood sample tests, Kumar said, “Two separate tests were conducted — one on personal appearance, smell and walking and the other on blood sample. The blood sample tests are being conducted at two different facilities to ensure that there is no scope for managing any of these test reports. We are awaiting the blood sample test report before we make any further comment.”
A senior police officer, who did not wish to be named, told TOI, “The personal appearance test was conducted about eight hours after the accident and it came out negative.”
Asked about allegations of preferential treatment to the boy at the police station, Kumar said, “I am personally studying the CCTV footage of the police station. If any preferential treatment has been given to the boy, I will suspend the entire staff of the police station.”
