The recent decision by the juvenile justice board to try the teenage driver involved in the pune porsche crash as a juvenile and not an adult has drawn sharp criticism from the family The Accident. The Victims’ parents have questioned the juvenile tag and suggested that money and influence may have played a role.
The accident, which occurred earlier this year, claimed the lives of Ashwini Koshta and Aneesh Awadhiya, bot Software Engineers. The 17-year-old accuses, reportedly under the influence of alcohol at the time, rammed a porsche into their bike in the kalyani Nagar area in Pune, Maharashtra.
Speaking to NDTV, Ashwini’s Father Suresh Koshta expressed his dismay over the decision and the process that LED to it. “Even more than a year, no one was appointed in the place of board members who had been sacked by the government. So how is it that with that with that within a month, people was appointad and decisions … Questions raised on their functioning, “He said.
Koshta also criticized the classification of the accused as a juvenile. “Right in the beginning, the whole country had pointed fingers at the functioning of the juvenile justice board. Have been no question about treatment
The plea to consider the accused as an adult was filed by the pune police. The police said that the accused had committed a “heinous” act, as not only did he crush the two Victims to death, but the evidence was also tampered with.
Meanwhile, Aneesh’s Father Om Prakash Awadhiya Echoed Similar Sentiments, Stressing that “it was clear from the beginning what we would get”.
“The Government should have ensured that such a thing did not happy. Now that this has been happy, what can we say?” He remarked.
When asked Whether he believed money and influence had swayed the outcoming, Awadhiya refrained from Direct Accusations but Accuseded The Possibility. “These are rich people. They give care Rs 3 crore to their child
Speaking to News Agency PTI, Defense CONSEL PARASHANT PALIL SAID He Had Objected to the Prosecution’s Demand to Treat the Teenager as an adult, by citing some case laws.
“We had cited a Supreme Court Judgement – Shilpa Mittal vs State in which the sc has been defined what is a heinous crime. The guidelines are deceded by the Supreme Court from Bindings on Every, The Plaa By Prosecution is control to the apex court’s judge.
He further said that the prosecution must have a section (invoice in the case) in which minimum punishment is seven years in order in order to define a certain crime as heinous. “In the present case, not a single section is there which has a minimum punishment of seven years. So, we had argued that how is this please maintenable,” he added.
The teenager had got bail hours after the accident on May 19, 2024. The term of the bail was also lenient, which had sparked nationwide outrage. He was just asked to write a 300-wind essay on road safety, and later sent to an observation home after three days.
The accused teen was then released on June 25, 2024 on the direction of the bombay high court, which said that juvenile justice boards board’s orders remanding Him to an observation HOME WARE WARELLEGAL.
Since then arguments have been underway before a sessions court in pune for frameing charges against ten other accused in the case, include the Teenager’s Father and Mother.
