Pune | June 24, 2025
The Pune Porsche crash case has taken a sharp legal and moral turn as new revelations suggest that 17-year-old Vedant Agarwal, the son of a prominent city-based builder, was heavily intoxicated hours before the fatal incident that claimed the lives of two young engineers. The Maharashtra government has now formally urged the Juvenile Justice Board to allow the teenager to be tried as an adult, citing the seriousness of the offence and strong supporting evidence.
According to Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hire, Vedant was drunk as early as 7 PM on the evening of the crash. Eyewitnesses are said to have confirmed his intoxicated state, and the prosecution has submitted that he not only ignored his driver’s repeated requests not to drive but also insisted on taking the wheel. After partying with friends at a luxury establishment in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar, Vedant drove his father’s high-performance Porsche 911 at reckless speeds through the city, accompanied by his driver and two friends.
The accident took place near Trump Towers, where Vedant allegedly lost control of the vehicle. First, the car rammed into a motorbike, instantly killing two young engineers — Anil Suryawanshi and Ashish Jadhav. It then collided with a Swift car nearby. The sheer impact and destruction caused by the crash have led to public outrage across the country, with many questioning the role of privilege and influence in shielding the rich from accountability.
In court, the prosecution has stressed that Vedant should be tried under IPC Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 467 (forgery), as well as Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which allows minors aged 16–18 to be tried as adults for heinous offences. IPC Section 304 carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, while Section 467 could lead to life imprisonment.
The case further deepened when allegations surfaced that Vedant’s blood samples were tampered with at Sassoon General Hospital to downplay his level of intoxication. It is claimed that his influential parents facilitated this manipulation with the help of hospital staff — a matter now under separate investigation. The health department has already suspended involved personnel, and an FIR has been registered for destruction of evidence and conspiracy.
Meanwhile, Vedant’s defence counsel, Advocate Prashant Patil, argued before the Juvenile Justice Board that the accused lacked criminal intent and should be dealt with under juvenile provisions. Citing precedents such as Shivani Mittal v. NCT of Delhi, Patil emphasized that the Juvenile Justice system prioritizes reform and rehabilitation. He stated that the crash, though tragic, was a case of misjudgment by a minor rather than a planned criminal act, and pointed out that there is no minimum punishment prescribed under IPC Section 304.
However, the prosecution maintains that Vedant displayed adult-like decision-making and conscious disregard for consequences by drinking, insisting on driving, and ignoring warnings. The argument is that such behavior, particularly when it results in the death of innocents, must be treated with the gravity it deserves — regardless of age or background.
The Juvenile Justice Board has concluded the hearing and is expected to pronounce its decision on July 15, determining whether Vedant will face trial as an adult in a regular sessions court. The outcome will not only decide the course of this case but may also set a significant precedent for how India’s legal system treats privileged juveniles in serious criminal matters.
Public attention remains high as both the legal battle and the broader societal debate over justice, privilege, and juvenile accountability continue to unfold.
