How the recent Porsche car incident that killed two people in Pune is similar to Salman Khan’s 2002 hit-and-run case – Firstpost

The recent Porsche accident in Pune, in which two people died, has become a hot topic of discussion. Speaking to the publication Free Press Journal, special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat, who secured the conviction of Salman Khan, spoke about vicarious liability.

Gharat said: “Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads: ‘If a juvenile has committed an offence under this Act, the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle shall be deemed guilty of the offence and shall be prosecuted and punished accordingly.'”

He added: “Under the new amended law, the guardian will be held independently liable for the crime. “So if the element of the offense is that the minor used the guardian’s car to commit the crime, the guardian is immediately held liable… This is how the arrest of the minor’s father can be explained.”

The hit-and-run case of Salman Khan

The Bombay High Court acquitted Bollywood actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case while acquitting him of the charge of leaving the scene of an accident without rendering assistance to the victims. that was in 2015.

According to prosecutors, Khan fled the scene after his SUV ran over people sleeping on the footpath in a Bandra suburb on September 28, 2002, killing one person and injuring four.

After the accident, a mob gathered and the situation prompted the actor to leave the place, Justice AR Joshi said in the verdict, a copy of which is also available.

“Although this court has held that the prosecution has not established that the accused (Salman) was driving the vehicle during the incident, it is still a position of fact that he was present in the vehicle and that position cannot be negated. Therefore, the meaning of Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act needs to be interpreted,” the court said.

According to Section 134, not only the driver but every person driving a vehicle involved in an accident is obliged to provide medical assistance to the victims.

“In view of this argument (that people armed with sticks, rods, etc. had gathered) and the factual situation that the circumstances were such that one could escape the fury of the mob and these circumstances were beyond the control of the appellant, no appropriate steps were taken to ensure medical treatment of the injured,” the judge said.

Find us on YouTube

Subscribe to