Pune Porsche crash: Minor’s father tried to show son wasn’t driving; CCTV seized from house tampered, say police

Kumar told media persons that after the accident, there was some attempt by the minor’s father to show that the driver of the Porsche car was not his son, but an adult driver. “So we are exploring the option of applying Section 201 of Indian Penal Code for destroying evidence,” he said.

The commissioner said the driver (adult) had initially said he was driving the Porsche car. “Probe is on and it will be known under whose pressure he made such a statement. Statement of this driver is important,” said Kumar.

“We have checked records at the security cabin of the minor’s residence, which shows he had taken the car while leaving the house. We have seized the CCTV videos from the minor’s house. Also, the statements of the eye-witnesses corroborate this technical evidence,” he added.

Police told the court through prosecution lawyer on Friday, a prima facie probe has revealed tampering of CCTV video seized from the minor’s house, at the particular time of offence. Police sought an extension in custody of the minor’s father to probe the CCTV through a cyber expert in his presence.

But special judge S P Ponkshe remanded the minor’s father and five others, who include owner and managers of the Cosie and Blak restaurants in Pune, to judicial custody till June 7.

Police claimed to have evidence that the minor boy consumed alcohol, including CCTV footage and bills from two restaurants where he had been allegedly drinking with his friends before the accident. Police are probing into a bill of Rs 47,000 that the minor paid at a restaurant.

Section 420 of IPC invoked, minor’s father to be lodged in Yerwada jail

A separate FIR was lodged on May 20 against the minor’s father under sections 75, 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act and sections of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) for allegedly giving him a car without number plates and money despite knowing that he drinks and was a minor without a driving licence.

In this offence, along with the father, police also arrested five employees of the two restaurants where liquor was served to the minor boy.

Police produced all six before the special court on Friday as their custody period expired. Additional public prosecutor Vidya Vibhute sought extension in their police custody by seven days for investigating into the CCTV DVR seized from the house of the minor boy, mobile phone recovered from his father, and to confront the father with the driver employed for Porsche car.

Vibhute told the court that sections 420 of IPC has been added against the accused (minor’s father) for cheating the government by non-payment of fees of Rs 1,759 at the Pune RTO for registration of Porsche car.

Vibhute said the accused did not complete the procedure to register the car in the name of his company. Vibhute said father’s custody was required to probe whether any company staffers are involved in this case. Vibhute also submitted that Section 5/180 of MVA and Section 65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act have been invoked in this case.

Advocate Prashant Patil, representing minor’s father, opposed further police custody. He said sufficient police custody was granted to the accused for investigation.

The prosecutor also sought custody of owner, managers of the two restaurants. She said the minor boy was not a member of Blak club, then why was he allowed to enter the place is being probed. Also, she said the original liquor permit and rent agreement of Hotel Cosie need to be recovered.

Defence lawyer S K Jain then handed over the agreement papers to the police in front of the court and argued that further custody of the accused was not required.

The court rejected the police plea for further custody of accused persons. Police said all the six accused would be taken to Yerwada jail.

Meanwhile, A citizen filed an intervention application before the court through his lawyer Piyush Rathi alleging that the minor’s father and others had allegedly threatened him at gunpoint for withdrawing a financial dispute case he had filed at the Lashkar court. Special judge Ponkshe asked the prosecution lawyer to file a say on this application.