PUNE: After a teenager who had partied at two pubs in the city rammed his Porsche Taycan into a bike around 2.30am Sunday, killing two techies, his builder father attempted to show that a driver, and not the teenager, was at the wheel at the time of the accident, Pune police commissioner Amitesh Kumar said Friday. “We will invoke IPC Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) against the father,” Kumar said.
The builder’s family driver had initially given a statement that he was driving the car, but when confronted again on Thursday with evidence, he claimed that his employer had asked him to take the blame and was told that he would be well taken care of in exchange, ACP (crime) Shailesh Balkawade told TOI.
Kumar admitted that an inquiry found lapses on the part of police in the initial hours of investigation, primarily in referring the teenager for a blood test. Rajendra Jagdale, officiating inspector in charge of Yerawada police station, and assistant inspector Vishwanath Todkar were suspended on Friday for dereliction of duty, ACP (east region) Manoj Patil said.
“The teen was sent to Sassoon general hospital around 9am and his blood sample was collected at 11am,” Kumar said. “A second sample was collected at another hospital between 7 pm and 8 pm for DNA profiling. Both samples were later sent to FSL and a report is awaited.”
The accident that killed the two techies travelling on a bike occurred at around 2.30 am on Sunday. The first FIR, mentioning IPC Sec 304-A (causing death by rash and negligent driving), was registered at 8.26am. “Around 11am, we added the more stringent Sec 304 (culpable homicide), and this had nothing to do with the public outrage,” Kumar said.
“Around 9 am, the teen was sent to Sassoon general hospital and his blood sample was collected at 11 am,” he said. “A second blood sample was collected at another hospital between 7 pm and 8 pm for DNA profiling, and to rule out any change of samples and tampering. Both these samples were later sent to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory and a report is awaited.”
The case is not solely standing on the blood sample report but also on IPC Sec 304 (conduct and knowledge), he said, adding that a water-tight case is being prepared.
“Our evidence shows the 17-year-old was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and he had knowledge about the consequences of his actions.”
Refusing to divulge the details of the investigation, the police chief said they have covered every possible angle to ensure that a watertight case is presented in court and the matter is taken to its logical conclusion. “At the time of the accident, there were four people in the Porsche Taycan – three minors and the family’s driver. Our evidence already shows the minor was behind the wheel. There were another seven to eight friends of the teenager who were with him at the two pubs. We are treating them as witnesses in the Sec 304 case. We have also initiated the process to hire special prosecutors in both cases,” Kumar said.
The police’s plea for the teenager to be tried as an adult is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, he said. “Our prayer before the board is that there is a provision under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act to try a minor offender as an adult. However, there is no provision to remand a minor as an adult. We have pleaded before the board that Sec 304 is a non-bailable offence for a heinous crime.”
The builder’s family driver had initially given a statement that he was driving the car, but when confronted again on Thursday with evidence, he claimed that his employer had asked him to take the blame and was told that he would be well taken care of in exchange, ACP (crime) Shailesh Balkawade told TOI.
Kumar admitted that an inquiry found lapses on the part of police in the initial hours of investigation, primarily in referring the teenager for a blood test. Rajendra Jagdale, officiating inspector in charge of Yerawada police station, and assistant inspector Vishwanath Todkar were suspended on Friday for dereliction of duty, ACP (east region) Manoj Patil said.
“The teen was sent to Sassoon general hospital around 9am and his blood sample was collected at 11am,” Kumar said. “A second sample was collected at another hospital between 7 pm and 8 pm for DNA profiling. Both samples were later sent to FSL and a report is awaited.”
The accident that killed the two techies travelling on a bike occurred at around 2.30 am on Sunday. The first FIR, mentioning IPC Sec 304-A (causing death by rash and negligent driving), was registered at 8.26am. “Around 11am, we added the more stringent Sec 304 (culpable homicide), and this had nothing to do with the public outrage,” Kumar said.
“Around 9 am, the teen was sent to Sassoon general hospital and his blood sample was collected at 11 am,” he said. “A second blood sample was collected at another hospital between 7 pm and 8 pm for DNA profiling, and to rule out any change of samples and tampering. Both these samples were later sent to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory and a report is awaited.”
The case is not solely standing on the blood sample report but also on IPC Sec 304 (conduct and knowledge), he said, adding that a water-tight case is being prepared.
“Our evidence shows the 17-year-old was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and he had knowledge about the consequences of his actions.”
Refusing to divulge the details of the investigation, the police chief said they have covered every possible angle to ensure that a watertight case is presented in court and the matter is taken to its logical conclusion. “At the time of the accident, there were four people in the Porsche Taycan – three minors and the family’s driver. Our evidence already shows the minor was behind the wheel. There were another seven to eight friends of the teenager who were with him at the two pubs. We are treating them as witnesses in the Sec 304 case. We have also initiated the process to hire special prosecutors in both cases,” Kumar said.
The police’s plea for the teenager to be tried as an adult is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, he said. “Our prayer before the board is that there is a provision under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act to try a minor offender as an adult. However, there is no provision to remand a minor as an adult. We have pleaded before the board that Sec 304 is a non-bailable offence for a heinous crime.”
