In a shocking hit-and-run case that claimed the lives of two software engineers in Pune, the lawyer representing the minor driver’s father has questioned the police’s decision to take him into custody.
Prashant Patil, the lawyer, reportedly (NDTV sources) scoffed at the police action, stating that the most crucial aspect will be evidence – whether the police have proof that the father had knowledge of his son’s activities.
The sections under which the father has been charged are deemed inapplicable, Patil added.
The horrific incident involved the teen driving at a staggering speed of likely 250 kmph when he struck the bike carrying the two engineers from Madhya Pradesh, resulting in their tragic deaths on the spot.
Despite being a few months short of the legal driving age of 18, the teen secured bail within 15 hours. He has been ordered to work with the Yerawada traffic police for 15 days and undergo counseling, as well as attend an alcohol de-addiction center.
The decision of the Juvenile Justice Board to grant quick bail with relatively lenient conditions has sparked widespread anger. The police have stated their intention to try the minor as an adult and have arrested the boy’s father, a prominent builder from the city, while also shutting down the bar where the teen and his friends were partying.
While the police have claimed the father bears moral responsibility for his underage son’s actions, Patil indicated that this might not be sufficient grounds for legal action.
“For any action under criminal law, one needs knowledge,” Patil stated. “There has to be evidence that the father had complete knowledge of whether the child was taking out the car or not.”
Addressing the issue of parental accountability, Patil argued that civil or criminal law is defined by the Juvenile Justice Act in this matter.
Patil further claimed that the police charges against the minor’s father have little relevance to the case, with the bulk of the charges falling under Sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Motor Vehicle Act, which do not directly apply to the circumstances.
The outraged families of the two victims have labeled the incident as “murder.” Aneesh Awadhiya’s uncle, Akhilesh Awadhiya, stated, “The accused, a minor, was drunk and was driving at 240 km per hour. He did not have a driving license. This is murder, not an accident.”
Even Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has questioned the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision and promised strong action against the teen.
