Why Pune Porsche crash trial has far-reaching implications, prosecutor explains

As the investigation had unfolded, the police had arrested the minor’s 51-year-old realtor father and 50-year-old mother; Dr Ajay Taware, then head of the forensic medicine of Sassoon hospital; Dr Shrihari Halnor, then casualty medical officer of Sassoon; Atul Ghatkamble, a staffer at the hospital’s morgue; and Ashpak Makandar and Amar Gaikwad, who allegedly acted as middlemen between the minor’s father and the doctors. These accused have been charged with tampering with evidence, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and corruption for the swapping of blood samples. The Pune police have also arrested and charged a 37-year-old man who had given his blood to be swapped with that of a minor co-passenger, along with the father of that co-passenger. The 52-year-old father of another minor co-passenger was also arrested earlier for giving his own blood sample to be swapped with his son. Among these 10 accused, except Ghatkamble, all have been granted bail.

The then minor driver has been arraigned at the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), where he faces charges of culpable homicide, among others. The Pune JJB had, on July 15 last year, rejected the city police’s plea to try the then minor accused driver as an adult.

Speaking to The Indian Express, Hiray said, “We have maintained that this is an important case because a systematic fraud has been committed against the judicial administration system. In this way, they tried to show that money and unethical means can be used to secure favourable results. And that is why the trial will have far-reaching implications. The trial will send a strong message that attempts to subvert the judicial process will not be tolerated.”

‘Attempts to delay framing of charges’

On the current status of the case, Hiray said, “Except Ghatkamble, all accused have been granted bail by the Supreme Court over a period of time. Ghatkamble’s bail plea is pending before the high court. One of the accused in the case – whose blood sample was swapped with that of a minor co-passenger – had moved the high court challenging the process of framing charges.”

“Prior to that, during the arguments on framing of charges in a Pune court, the lawyers for this accused came with a claim that the prosecution had not provided them with copies of the CCTV footage, even though the footage had already been submitted to the court and could have been obtained from there. After the court ruled on this issue, they further argued that while there were 53 CCTV cameras at Sassoon Hospital, the prosecution had submitted footage from only three cameras, despite the fact that the prosecution was relying solely on those three clips as evidence,” he added.

Hiray further said that the defence lawyer sought nearly half a dozen adjournments from the court, which clearly reflected an intention to delay the proceedings.

“I strongly suspect that the accused who filed these applications was merely being used as a pawn by the other accused, who actually wanted to stall the process. This is because the applications filed by this one accused were repeatedly cited by lawyers representing the other accused while seeking delays in the framing of charges. I, therefore, argued before the court that this one accused could be kept aside until the matter was decided and that charges could meanwhile be framed against the remaining accused,” he remarked.

“So after the Pune court rejected this application by the defence, the accused moved the high court. The high court recently ruled… that such an application cannot stop the lower court from framing the charges. So, we are at the stage where charges can be framed very soon – provided no new hurdle is created by the defence,” Hiray said, adding that the framing of charges will mark the beginning of the trial.

“I have to stress that the prosecution has opened the case before the sessions court in a very timely manner. We provided a witness list on time and submitted proposed charges at the earliest. Meanwhile, the prosecution has also filed an appeal before the Sessions court challenging the order of the JJB, which had rejected the police’s plea to try the accused minor driver in the Porsche crash case as an adult,” the special public prosecutor concluded.