#accident Archives - Prime Legal

26 Jun

Pune Porche Accident: Bombay High Court Ignores “See Accused’s Action and not Age,” Despite Public Outcry.

Blog #accident, #bombayhighcourt, #death, #driving, #minor, #motorvehicleact, #PorcheAccident, #publicinterest, #pune, #roadaccident

The accused, who is considered a kid under the Juvenile Justice Act, must be treated with the same respect as all other children who are in conflict with law, the court decided.

In the case of Pooja Gagan Jain v. State of Maharashtra, the infamous Pune minor Porsche accident in its order of releasing the juvenile accused from the observation home, the Bombay high court determined that the call to “see the accused’s action and not his age” would have to be overlooked.

The divison bench of justices Manjusha Deshpande and Bharati Dangre, determined that the juvenile accused must receive the same treatment that every other child in conflict with law is entitled to receive. They stated that the purpose of the 2015 Act, which is that to ensure children in conflict with law are meant to be dealt separately and not like adults. Although the prosecution requested that the accused be charged with a ‘heinous offence’ and prosecuted as an adult, the Court emphasised that such considerations must be consistent with the law’s provisions. It underlined that the legislative framework requires an inclusive and enabling environment to lessen children’s vulnerabilities. As a result, the Court has granted the juvenile accused relief under the Juvenile Justice Act’s specific provisions.

This order was passed after the accused’s aunt moved the Bombay high court saying that the accused was detained by juvenile justice board in observation home, arbitrarily and unlawfully.

Two people were killed when the juvenile in conflict with law, son of a well-known Pune builder struck a motorbike in the Kalyani Nagar neighbourhood with his Porsche car. Later on, it was discovered that the accused had been drinking with his friends at a pub prior to the incident, leading to the whole mishap. In accordance with the requirements of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 304A, 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), he was charged with reckless and careless driving, inflicting harm by jeopardising the safety of people, and causing death by carelessness.

On May 19, he was given bail, but he was subsequently placed under monitoring in a home.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

20 Jun

Minor’s Aunt Challenges Pune Police in High Court Over Detention in Porsche Crash Case

Prime Legal

Blog #accident, #BOMBAY HIGH COURT, #Juvenile Justice Act, #writ, bail

Update –

In the Pune Porsche car crash case, a paternal aunt of the minor accused has petitioned the Bombay High Court, alleged the illegality of the teenager’s detention and requested his prompt release. Presently, the boy is held at an observation home in Pune.

Key Aspects –

In a habeas corpus plea filed with the Bombay High Court, the petitioner, a paternal aunt of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche car crash case, has alleged that she was compelled to take legal action against the Pune Police. She accuses them of abusing legal processes and disregarding the rule of law in their handling of her nephew’s case. The petition challenges what it describes as the arbitrary and illegal detention of the minor, who is classified as a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

According to the petitioner, the detention order issued by the Juvenile Justice Board in Pune violates provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The plea seeks the immediate release of the minor into the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner argues that despite allegations that the CCL was driving under the influence of alcohol during the accident, it should be considered an unfortunate incident involving a minor.

Furthermore, the petitioner points out that the FIR filed by Pune Police lists offenses under sections 304A (causing death by negligence), 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 427 (mischief causing damage to property) of the Indian Penal Code, along with relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. These offenses are all bailable, indicating that, in the petitioner’s view, the severity of the charges does not justify the continued detention of the minor.

The petitioner asserts that the actions of the Pune Police are illegal and that the continued detention of the CCL under the remand order is unjustified. The plea aims to secure the immediate release of the minor into the care of the petitioner, emphasizing the need to uphold the rights and protections afforded under juvenile justice laws.

Written by – Anurag Das

26 May

Can a minor escape punishment? A legal analysis into Pune porsche crash case:

Prime Legal

Articles #accident, #car crash, #minor

INTRODUCTION:

The issue of road accidents is becoming a matter of concern for the country. In the last few years, there has been a sharp increase in the number of road accidents in the country. The main reasons for road accidents in the country are over speeding, careless driving (like wrong lane), drunk driving, not wearing helmet, not wearing seat belt and not maintaining vehicles etc. Recently, there was outrage all across the country pertaining to 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 was also pertaining 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. While the country mourns the loss of two young lives and shares the grief of the families whose children were mercilessly mowed down by an irresponsible minor in Pune, we also stare at the stark reality of a defunct criminal justice system. If the drunk rich boy was reckless, one wonders how responsible was the Juvenile Justice Board that handled his criminal act with kid gloves. In this article we will discuss as to y the minor was granted bail, why was the father of minor arrested? And whether one can escape punishment soly on the ground of he being minor.

PUNE PORSCHE CAR CRASH: OVERVIEW

On May 19, of 2024, Porsche car allegedly driven by a 17-year-old boy collided with a motorcycle, killing two in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar, The incident first came to public attention when a friend of the deceased filed an FIR at the Yerwada police station, the victims were identified as Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both 24-year-old software engineers working in Pune The two died on the spot. Police have said the 17-year-old accused, son of a prominent Pune realtor, was heavily drunk at the time of the accident. During the investigation, on May 20. Information disclosed that, the Porsche, allegedly driven by a minor, was traveling at an estimated speed of 160 km/h when it crashed into the victims’ motorcycle. As per the sources it is alleged that There are also concerns over the delay in a blood alcohol test of the minor as the minor was taken to Sassoon hospital around 9 am and the sample was collected around 11 am. Minutes after the accident, the teen’s father called the driver and offered him a reward in lieu of a cash reward. They asked the driver to switch places with the boy and tell the police that he was driving the car. When the driver turned down the offer, they tried to threaten him into accepting that he was behind the wheel when the accident took place, The driver has filed a police complaint where he also claims that the teen’s grandfather locked him up and did not allow him to go home for two days. Police have registered a wrongful confinement case and arrested the grandfather.”The teen’s grandfather and father allegedly took the driver’s phone and put him in confinement in his house on the premises of their bungalow from May 19 to May 20. The driver was freed by his wife,” said an official from the crime branch, which is probing the case. Cops said that they have CCTV footage and other evidence to prove that the teen, who was drunk, was driving the Porsche.further it was revealed that The boy had gone out to celebrate with his friends after passing his Class 12 board exams. After partying at a posh Pune club, where they ran up a bill of ₹ 48,000, the boy fought with the driver for the keys of the car. The driver initially resisted, but allowed the teen to drive after a call with the boy’s father.Driving at 160 kmph, the teen crashed into a bike killing two 24-year-old software engineers from Madhya Pradesh. He was taken into custody by police at 3 am, and granted bail within 15 hours on the conditions seen as flimsy. He was asked to write a 300-word essay on road accidents, told to work with traffic cops for 15 days, and seek counselling for his drinking habit. As per the Pune police, the minor accused has told them his father knew he was consuming liquor. The police say they also have evidence, including the CCTV footage from two restaurants, which indicates the boy had been drinking with friends late on Saturday.On May 21, the Pune police detained the father under Sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act for allowing his minor son to consume alcohol and drive the Porsche while intoxicated. Additionally, police invoked provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act for permitting a minor to drive without a license. Later, the Juvenile Justice Board modified the order and sent him to a remand home till June 5. The police have requested the board permission to try the teen as an adult.The case has sparked outrage across the nation with several protests being held seeking swift justice.

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015

The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 is a law in India that deals with the care and protection of children. It was enacted in 2015 and replaced the previous Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The Act defines a child as a person who is below the age of 18 years. It also defines different categories of children. This includes children in need of care and protection, children in conflict with the law, and children in institutional care.The Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2015 is an act to strengthen and amend the law relating to children who are alleged to be in conflict with the law and children who are in need of care and protection by meeting their basic needs through adequate care, protection, development, treatment, along with social reintegration, by adopting and implementing a child-friendly approach in the arbitration and disposal of matters and cases in the finest interest of children and for the rehabilitation of children therefore, From the facts of the present case in question, the accused will probably be tried as a minor,The juvenile justice act is applicable as the accused here is aged about 17 years, Also 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.

WHY WAS THE MINOR GRANTED BAIL?

The present case is booked under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code which 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, sec 10 of jj act, talks about Apprehension of child alleged to be in conflict with law, as per this section once a child alleged to be in conflict with law is apprehended by the police, such child shall be placed under the charge of the special juvenile police unit or the designated child welfare police officer, who shall produce the child before the Board without any loss of time but within a period of twenty-four hours of apprehending the child excluding the time necessary for the journey, from the place where such child was apprehended the act also Provides that in no case, a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be placed in a police lockup or lodged in a jail.However as per sec 12 of the said act, any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a abailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person Hence the minor was granted bail, therefore instead of criticizing judges, its time to critisize law makers for the presense of such law

WHY WAS THE MINORS FATHER ARRESTED?

The police also arrested the minor’s father for allegedly giving him a car without number plates and money despite knowing that he drinks and was a minor without a driving licence.Wherein the minor’s father was arrested on the basis of parential liability as per sec 199A of the motor vehicles act,which states that the guardian or the owner of the motor vehicle will be held responsible/liable for the acts 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. Similarly,the minors father wad also arrested under Sec77 of the juvenile justice act, which talks about Penalty for giving intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a child, wherein it states that Whoever gives, or causes to be given, to any child any intoxicating liquor or any narcotic drug or tobacco products or psychotropic substance, except on the order of a duly qualified medical practitioner, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment.

WHAT IS THE NEXT PROCESS, CAN A MINOR ESCAPE PUNISHMENT:

Minor cannot escape the punishment and can be punished if any minor is 16 to 18 years of age and is involved in a serious crime, wherein he can be tried and punished as an adult but the juvenile justice board has to decide it on the basis of considering the physical and mental capacity of the minor while committing the offence, however it is mainly to be determined whether the minor was aware of the consequences of the crime and whether he was understanding the result of the act he likely committed.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.Therefore in the present case there is highest possibility of the minor being treated as adult and tried asif the adult has committed the crime

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 possibility to reform.If the minor is to be treated as an adult, then the trial is conducted following the procedure applicable for 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.

In conclusion we can say that Needless to say that 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.

Article written by: Sowmya.R

28 Dec

The Bombay HC Allows The Appeal Partially Regarding The Tribunal’s Order Of The Compensation Amount

Prime Legal

Blog #accident, #BOMBAY HIGH COURT, #compensation, #First Appeal, #tribunal

TITLE: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Lauretta Shashin Mogale And Ors.

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Shivekumar Dige

DATE: 8th December, 2023.

CITATION: First Appeal No.1067 Of 2018

FACTS

On 26th July 2011, deceased Shashin Mogale was proceeding in his car bearing No. MH-14-CK-7387, he was on the way to his house. At that time, at about 1.55 am., a tanker bearing registration No.KA-01-C/2284 came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the car of the deceased. Respondent No.4 was driving the said tanker. The deceased was admitted in the hospital but he succumbed to injuries. On the basis of evidence on record, the Tribunal has considered the salary of deceased at Rs.98700/- per month including arrears.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune. The claimants have filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that while calculating compensation, the Tribunal has considered arrears of salary of the deceased and, on that basis, compensation is awarded, which is not proper. Learned counsel further submitted that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased. In the post- mortem report, it is mentioned that there was smell of alcohol. It shows that deceased was under the influence of liquor but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal.

It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants that the Tribunal has deducted 30% future prospects as income tax, which is not proper. Learned counsel further submitted that consortium amount is not properly awarded, it be awarded. The Chemical Analysis Report is received after the conclusion of the trial. It is produced on record, it does not show that at the time of accident deceased was under the influence of liquor.

LAWS INVOLVED:

304A Of Indian Penal Code: Causing Death By Negligence.

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923

ISSUES:

Whether there is a case of Contributary Negligence?
Whether the compensation amount decide by the Tribunal was valid or not?

JUDGEMENT:

The Appeal is partly allowed as the Court has deducted arrears amount from salary of deceased as well as some allowance amount from the salary. The cross-objection is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 1671227/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation of the amount. Out of this amount, Rs.1,80,000/- is consortium amount, the claimants are entitled for interest on this amount at 7.5% from 1st November 2017 till realisation of the same.

The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon within 8 weeks after the receipt of this order.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click Here to View Judgement

6 Nov

First-Time Offender’s Sentence Reduced Due to Commitment to Reform and Lower Socio-Economic Status: High Court of Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog #accident, #delhi, #judgement, #law, #LegalPost

Title: Mohd Nasim vs. The State

Citation: CRL.REV.P.296/2017

Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

Decided on: 3-11-2023

Introduction:

The present criminal revision petition has been filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, along with section 482 of the same Code. This legal action aims to challenge and set aside three specific legal orders and judgments: The order dated 27.03.2017, referred to as “the impugned order,” issued by the District and Sessions Judge of East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the appellate court”). The judgment dated 17.03.2016, referred to as “the impugned judgment.” The order on sentence dated 15.07.2016, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate-03, East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the trial court”).These orders and judgments pertain to a criminal case that arose from the FIR numbered 151/2009, registered under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur. The purpose of this criminal revision petition is to seek a review and potentially set aside these legal decisions.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, The case pertains to an incident in 2009, where a road accident occurred involving a rickshaw used for carrying goods and a blue line bus with the registration number DL 1PB 9786 (referred to as “the offending vehicle”). The Investigating Officer, SI Yad Ram, arrived at the accident scene after receiving information about the incident. A statement from the complainant, Mohd. Sabir was recorded, in which he described that the rickshaw he was travelling in was hit from behind by the offending bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner.

As a result of the collision, the deceased, Mahesh, fell on the road, and the rear tire of the bus ran over him, causing injuries that led to his subsequent death during treatment. An FIR was registered based on the statement of the complainant, initially under sections 279/337 IPC, and later section 304A IPC was added due to the death of the deceased. The petitioner, identified as Mohd. Nasim was charged as the driver of the offending bus. The trial court conducted proceedings, and the prosecution presented its evidence, including 11 witnesses, including the complainant and the Investigating Officer. The petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed false implication during his statement.

The trial court, in its judgment, convicted the petitioner for offences under sections 279/304A IPC and imposed sentences, including imprisonment and compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was also sentenced for an offence under section 279 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The Court concluded that, The present First Information Report (FIR) dates back to 2009, and the petitioner has been involved in legal and judicial proceedings related to this FIR since then. The petitioner is described as a first-time offender with a clear criminal record. They belong to a lower socio-economic stratum and are the primary provider for their elderly parents. The legal heirs of the deceased in this case have already received compensation. The petitioner has expressed a commitment to reform themselves. The petitioner’s actions, characterized as rash and negligent driving, led to the untimely death of a young man. This incident caused irreparable loss to the victim’s family.

After considering all the facts, the court has decided that justice would be served by reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to simple imprisonment for six months. The remaining part of the sentence, as specified in the order on sentencing dated 15.07.2016, is to be maintained. The court has directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court on 20.11.2023 at 2:30 PM to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. The judgment is to be provided to the petitioner and sent to the relevant trial court for their information.

The present petition, along with any pending applications, has been decided and disposed of accordingly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgements

1 2