The police have filed a chargesheet in the Pune Porsche case after nearly two months, in which the parents of a minor boy who was allegedly driving the car have also been named. The police’s voluminous chargesheet includes statements of 50 witnesses.
The name of the 17-year-old minor boy has not been included in the 900-page chargesheet filed by the police in the sessions court on Thursday as his case is pending with the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). While seven people have been named as accused, they have been charged under relevant sections of the IPC. The seven accused have been charged under sections related to criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence.
According to the chargesheet, two other accused, Ashpak Makandar and Amar Gaikwad, acted as middlemen between the boy’s father and the doctors for the money transaction for exchange of blood samples.
The chargesheet includes statements of 50 witnesses
Additional Police Commissioner Shailesh Balkavade said, “We have filed a 900-page chargesheet in a Pune court on Thursday against seven accused, including the minor’s parents, two doctors and an employee of Sassoon General Hospital and two middlemen.” The police’s massive chargesheet includes statements of 50 witnesses. Additional Police Commissioner Balkavade said that the chargesheet includes the accident impact analysis report, technical evidence, forensic laboratory and DNA reports.
The police had prepared a crash impact analysis report with the help of a forensic expert. The aim of the report is to correlate the impact of the Porsche car on the motorcycle involved in the accident and also establish a connection with the injuries of the IT professionals who died.
Bombay HC grants bail to minor
Last month, the police submitted a final report to the JJB detailing all the evidence against the 17-year-old boy in the car accident case. He was released from a juvenile correction home in Pune late last month following a Bombay High Court order, while the minor boy’s parents are still in jail.
Apart from the main case related to the incident, the police had registered two more cases, one against the owners and staff of Kosi Restaurant and Hotel Black Club, where the minor boy had allegedly consumed alcohol earlier. The police had also registered a case against the minor boy’s father under sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Section 77 of the JJ Act deals with supply of intoxicating liquor or drugs to a child, which applies to the owners and managers of the two establishments. Section 75 of the JJ Act deals with punishment for cruelty to a child. Section 75 applies to the boy’s father because he gave his son a car knowing that he did not have a driving licence, thereby endangering his life. He allowed his son to party knowing that he was a drinker.
A case has also been registered against the minor’s grandfather
The second case was registered against the minor’s father and grandfather for allegedly kidnapping their family driver, holding him hostage, and then threatening and pressurising him to tell the police that he was driving the car at the time of the accident.
what is the matter
Let us tell you that on May 19, the minor accused was allegedly in a drunken state and was driving a Porsche car at a very high speed. During this, two software engineers Anish Avadhiya and Ashwini Koshta died after colliding with the car. The minor accused was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board on the same day and ordered to be kept under the supervision of his parents and grandfather. Along with this, the court had also laid down the condition that the minor accused would have to write an essay of 300 words on road safety. However, the police later filed an application before the board, seeking amendment in the bail order. On May 22, the board ordered to take the minor accused into custody and send him to the juvenile correction home.
The police found manipulation in the blood sample, following which IPC sections 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 213 (receiving gift, etc., to secure the safety of an offender from punishment) and 214 (offering gift or restoration of property to enable the offender to prosecute for original offence registered against a minor) were added.
The main offence was registered under sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 304A (causing death by negligence), 279 (rash driving) of the IPC and relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.