Highlight
In the early morning of May 19, 2024, a tragic accident occurred in Pune, resulting in the deaths of two IT professionals. They were on a two-wheeler when a Porsche, allegedly driven by a minor, struck them.
Backstory of the case
A 24-year-old man named Aneesh and a 24-year-old woman named Ashwini, both from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, were working at an IT company in Pune. One night, they went to a club called Ballr to party with friends. Meanwhile, Vedant and his 12 friends were at another pub called Cosie, spending a large amount of money on alcohol. Despite being under 18 and below the legal drinking age, Vedant was drinking.
After being cut off from further drinks, Vedant and his friends left Cosie and went to another club called Blak, located a few kilometres away from Ballr. Later, Vedant and two of his friends, along with his driver, left the club in Vedant’s electric Porsche Taycan while heavily intoxicated.
Around the same time, Aneesh and Ashwini were returning home on a motorcycle. As they took a U-turn on Kalyani Nagar Airport Road, Vedant’s Porsche, speeding at an estimated 160 to over 200 kmph, collided with their motorcycle, causing a devastating accident. Tragically, both Aneesh and Ashwini lost their lives in the crash.
Post-Crash Facts
Vedant Agarwal was taken to the Yerwada police station after the accident. Shortly after, MLA Sunil Tingre arrived at the station, to be there for Vedant. This unusual gesture suggested Vedant that he comes from a wealthy and well- connected family. His father, Vishal Agarwal, is a well-known builder and owner of Bramha Corp.
Sunil Tingre, an MLA, later stated in an interview that he did not influence the case. He claimed he went to the police station because he has known Vedant’s family for 30 years and considers them friends. He was there because Vishal Agarwal called him for help.
That night, an interesting event occurred at the police station. A man arrived in a Mercedes with 6-7 pizza cartons, and reporters outside noted that it seemed like a feast was taking place inside, with pizza being served. Sunil Tingre stayed at the police station for several hours before leaving.
FIR and its Analysis
An FIR was filed against Vedant under Section 304A, not Section 304, which has caused controversy. Section 304A is for death by negligence, meaning someone died because of a mistake you made. The maximum punishment under this section is 2 years in jail. In contrast, Section 304 is for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This means you knew your mistake could lead to someone’s death but committed it anyway, though without the direct intention to kill. The maximum punishment under Section 304 is 10 years in prison. The key difference between these sections is your awareness of the potential consequences of your actions.
The police needed to test Vedant’s blood for alcohol, but the test was done about 8 hours after the accident, at 11 in the morning. Normally, alcohol stays in the bloodstream for 6 to 12 hours, so one would expect the test to show positive results. However, the test came back negative because of tampering. The doctor at the hospital threw away Vedant’s real blood sample and replaced it with a clean one. The Agarwal family paid ₹300,000 to two doctors, Dr. Ajay Taware and Dr. Shrihari Halnor, who were later arrested for this fraud.
Additionally, Vedant’s mother tried to convince their driver to take the blame for the crash. Vedant’s grandfather even threatened the driver to admit he was driving. Fortunately, there were many witnesses that night, preventing them from successfully shifting the blame.
Controversial decision of the court
The most surprising part of the case came when Vedant was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. As a condition of bail, he was required to study road rules, prepare a presentation, and write a 300-word essay on road accidents and their solutions. This decision caused widespread shock and outrage across the country when people heard about it, leading to significant uproar on social media. Many found it unsettling that such a lenient punishment was given considering the gravity of the incident where Vedant’s drunk driving resulted in the deaths of two people.
Result of Public Outrage
On May 20th, the police took their case to the Sessions Court, seeking to try Vedant as an adult and upgrade the charge from Section 304A to Section 304. However, the Sessions Court directed them to approach the Juvenile Justice Board for this decision. Additionally, more individuals were implicated in the case, including the owner of Club Cosie, his father, and the manager, along with managers from Blak restaurant.
During a court appearance for remand, Judge SP Ponkshe made a notable remark, questioning what people leaving big pubs would do since they often drive home rather than walk. He emphasized the responsibility of establishments serving alcohol to monitor how much they serve their customers and suggested establishing limits to prevent such incidents.
Other Charges and Related Incidents
Under mounting pressure, the police have filed an FIR against Vedant’s father, Vishal Agarwal. He is charged under Section 75 for neglecting or exposing a child to harm, and Section 77 for supplying intoxicating substances to a minor. Additionally, sections3, section 5 and section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act were cited for allowing Vedant to drive without a license.
On May 20th, Vishal Agarwal attempted to flee after securing bail for his son, even purchasing a new SIM card to avoid being tracked. However, he was apprehended the next day in Aurangabad. The public outcry over the case reached its peak, with widespread anger and political leaders discussing the issue.
On May 22nd, Vedant appeared in Juvenile Court, facing additional charges under Section 185 for driving under the influence of alcohol. The police urged the court to try Vedant as an adult, not as a minor.
Conclusion
An interesting legal technicality makes it challenging to impose a strict punishment on Vedant. Typically, individuals under 18 receive minimal punishment for crimes. This issue was highlighted during the Nirbhaya case about 10 years ago when one of the convicts was a minor. Public pressure led to the 2015 amendment of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, allowing the Juvenile Justice Board to decide if those aged 16-18 who commit heinous crimes should be tried as adults. Heinous crimes are those with a minimum imprisonment of 7 years, like murder.
However, in Vedant’s case, even Section 304 of the IPC, which can lead to a maximum of 10 years in prison, does not specify a minimum sentence. Therefore, it doesn’t qualify as a heinous crime. Additionally, Vedant is just four months shy of turning 18. Legally, the concept of “Doli Incapax” means children below a certain age are not considered capable of committing crimes intentionally. Punishments for such minors are different from those for adults, focusing on reform rather than punishment. Various countries have different age thresholds for this concept, ranging from 6 to 15 years.
This case is still being tried in court, and we don’t know how many twists and turns it will take in the future.
Written by- Devesh Sharma, Completed 4th Year, BBA LLB, UPES Dehradun
