Porsche crash case: After JJB ruling, what next for minor, possible outcomes

In the early hours of May 19 last year, the then 17-year-old minor was allegedly driving the Porsche Taycan at a high speed while he was intoxicated when the car crashed into a bike killing two software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. He was detained and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) the same afternoon. Police sought his custody in an observation home and requested he be tried as an adult, but the JJB rejected both pleas and granted bail with conditions, including writing an essay, studying traffic norms, and undergoing de-addiction counselling.

Amid public outcry, Pune Police challenged the order in district court, which sent the matter back to the JJB. On May 22, the JJB remanded the minor to an observation home until June, with psychological and de-addiction counselling included in his rehabilitation. His initial remand ended June 5 and was extended to June 12. Police then sought another 14-day extension, while the defence requested his release to family. After hearing both sides, the JJB extended the remand to June 25. However, the Bombay High Court, responding to a habeas corpus plea from his aunt, ruled the remand illegal and ordered the minor’s release into her care. The minor has turned 18 in the later half of 2024.

How will the case proceed now?

If after a preliminary assessment, the JJB were to pass an order that there is a need for the minor to be tried as an adult, then the case would be referred to a designated Children’s Court. However, now that the JJB has rejected the plea, future proceedings will be held under section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which pertains to “Inquiry by JJB regarding child in conflict with law”, which is similar to the trial.

A lawyer who has practiced at the JJB for several years, said, “This inquiry by the JJB is conducted in ways which are similar to a regular trial. Now the arguments will be held on the charges. Subsequently there will be framing of charges where the minor is asked whether he pleads guilty or nor guilty. Then witnesses are called. The examination-in-chief and cross examination of these witnesses is held.”

The lawyer added, “When the minor is initially produced before the JJB, a Social Investigation Report is prepared by a probation officer, comprising family background of the child and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the JJB for making the inquiry. This report along with a report from the counsellors forms a key basis of the order of the JJB, this is where the inquiry is different than a trial.” The three member JJB is headed by a magistrate with at least three years experience and two social workers, of whom at least one is a woman.

When contacted, the minor’s lawyer, advocate Prashant Patil said, “In the next hearing of the JJB we expect to hold arguments over the charges. We are expecting an independent and fair proceeding without getting affected by the allegations coming from the media trial and only on the basis of evidence collected by the investigation agency.”

Outcomes of the inquiry

If the JJB finds that the child is not in conflict with law, order is passed accordingly. The JJB may find the child in conflict with law based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, under section 18 of JJ Act.

The JJB can pass the following orders

— Allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following the appropriate inquiry and counselling.
— Direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities.
— Order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution.
— Order the child or the parents or the guardian of the child to pay a fine. Direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent or guardian.
— Direct the child to be released on probation into the care of a facility for any period not exceeding three years.
— Direct the child to be sent to a special home, for a period not exceeding three years, for providing reformative services and psychiatric support.

Will appeal, need for wider debate: Special Prosecutor

Special Public Prosecutor advocate Shishir Hiray said, “We will be filing an appeal against the JJB ruling in the stipulated time period of 30 days. We are thoroughly studying the orders. We are also holding discussions with the investigation agency, senior police officers and the Law and Judiciary department of the government.”
Hiray added, “However this entire case and ongoing legal proceedings are crucial in multiple ways. First, as we have argued time again, that in this case attempts were made to change the entire course of justice delivery by tampering with the evidence. Going a step further, there is a need for a much wider national level debate on what constitutes a heinous crime under the provisions of the JJ Act and the provisions surrounding that aspect.”