Author: Khushi, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak
What happened?
On 19 May, a 17-year-old minor boy who was in a state of drunkenness killed two young IT professionals while he was driving his Porsche car rashly. This incident took place in Kalyani Nagar area of Pune, Maharashtra. The duo who got killed during the incident were on a bike.
The boy was a minor and also lacked license and thus an F.I.R. was registered against him in the nearest police station. But a series of events happened afterwards that drew a lot of public attention.
Who is the minor boy who did the accident?
The minor boy who is being held responsible for the accident is Vedant Agarwal, son of a big builder of Pune – Vishal Agarwal. He was 17 years old and was turning 18 in just 4 months.
Brief of the happenings
Underage drinking: Vedant went to a pub for drinking and celebrating with his friends. While the age limit for drinking in Maharashtra is 25 but this 17-year-old boy got the alcohol served by the pub staff.
Driving by the minor: After they were highly drunk Vedant who was a minor and had no driving license decided to drive the car himself. The car was unregistered and also had no license plate.
Rash driving: The boy was driving his Porsche car at a speed of 200 kmph in a crowded area and thus his car collided with the young duo’s bike and they both died on the spot.
Arrival of the MLA at police station: After an F.I.R. was registered against Vedant, the local MLA arrived at the police station at 3 AM.
Skipping the protocols: As per protocols the police had to conduct two tests immediately after the incident: A blood test and a personal appearance test. It was to verify whether the boy was drunk or not. But even after 8 hours of the incident no such test was conducted.
Switching of blood samples: The boy’s blood samples were replaced by another sample just to save him from the case. The replacement was done by the chief medical officer of the hospital.
Granting bail at the juvenile justice board: When Vedant was sent at the Juvenile Justice board he was asked to undergo de addiction counselling and for consulting a psychiatrist. Along with this he was granted a bail by the board. This rose a lot of outrage amongst the general public
Filing F.I.R. against the father of the boy: An F.I.R against the father of the boy was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act ,1998 for giving his car to a minor. But Vishal Agarwal, the father of the boy went missing from Pune. He got later arrested from Aurangabad.
Trying the minor as an adult: Keeping in note the public outrage, the Pune police went to the Juvenile board to seek permission for trying the minor as an adult as he had committed a heinous crime.
Cancellation of bail by Juvenile board: On 22 May, the minor boy’s bail got cancelled and he was sent to a remand home by the board which is actually a place for rehabilitation for the juveniles who have committed serious crimes.
While all this was happening the family made false claims where they said that it was the driver who was driving the car when the accident took place. The driver also admitted this claim but later refused it and told that he was forced by the boy’s grandfather to do so.
What’s wrong?
Firstly, the happening of multiple crimes like underage drinking, drunk driving and over speeding by the minor.
Secondly the interference with the legal system by those in power such as happened in this case where the rich family tried to save their son through illegal means. (Blaming driver, swapping blood samples, influencing police officials)
Laws applied
The bail order by the juvenile board was challenged by the Pune police under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act. And thus, the boy’s bail got cancelled and he was further sent to a remand home.
The pune police also filed an application under Section 15 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act for trying the minor as an adult.
Pune police also proposed prosecution of the boy under Section 299 of IPC instead of Section 304 A of IPC.
What is different between the two?
SECTION 304 A
Causing death by negligence
If someone causes the death of another person by being careless or negligent, but without any intention to kill or cause serious harm, they can be punished. The punishment can be up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.
SECTION 299
Culpable homicide
If a person causes the death of another by doing an act:
-with the intention of causing death,
-with the intention of causing bodily harm that is likely to cause death, or
-knowing that their act is likely to cause death,
they are said to commit culpable homicide.
The reason for prosecution under Section 299 was that the child’s act of drinking and driving at high speed automatically clarified that it could have caused death but he still did it.
Main complexity in the case
The boy who is convicted in the case is a minor (4 months less than the age of 18). Now as per law, punishment granted for a minor person is almost negligible.
Taking it into notice earlier the government brought an amendment in the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act in 2015. It stated that if a child aged between 16-18 yeas of age commits a heinous crime then the juvenile board can trial him as an adult.
But the Section 304 under which the boy is currently accused doesn’t fall under the category of heinous crime.
Hence it is a question for the court ,whether to treat the child as a minor or an adult because his acts of negligence towards the law ultimately resulted in the death of two innocent persons.
Cases registered so far
Three cases have been filed in connection with the car accident. The cases include an F.I.R. about the accident. The second one is against the bar that allegedly served liquor to the juvenile.
The boy’s father is convicted for allowing the minor child to drive the car without a driving license.
The third case is about coercing the family driver to take the blame for the accident.
Conclusion
The case reveals that how the boy does everything illegal: drove a car without a license plate, drunk alcohol despite being underage, how the rich family tries to blame the driver in the case, how the blood samples were changed by bribing, and how a bail was granted very simply to the boy responsible for killing two innocent people.
The case clearly raises questions on the corrupt system and the influence of the aristocratic people in the legal system of India. It raises question on how everything was forgiven for the boy just because he had the power of money.
And the biggest of all, for how long will this power be enjoyed by the rich people of the country while the innocent ones keep suffering?
Author: Khushi, B.A. L.L.B. (2nd semester), a student at Maharshi Dayanand University
FAQS
What is the Juvenile justice board?
ANS. It is a board that is constituted in every state and it deals with children who are alleged to have committed some offence.
What is a Remand home?
ANS. It is an institution which is like a detention home for juveniles who have committed crimes.
What is a heinous crime as per law?
ANS. A heinous crime is a crime where imprisonment is at least 7 years or above. Thus, any crime in which the minimum sentence of imprisonment is below 7 years is not covered under the category of heinous crime.
Can the parents of the boy be convicted in this case?
ANS. Yes, the parents can be and are actually being convicted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 for giving car to a minor.
They were also remanded by the Pune court on 2 June for destroying evidence of blood sample under IPC section 201.
Why are children not punished for crimes?
ANS. This is because it is presumed that the minors do not have the mental capacity to understand about consequences of their actions.
But an amendment was brought in the Juvenile justice act where juveniles above 16 can now be tried as adults for heinous crimes.
