New Delhi: Eight years is a long time. Few know this better than Shilpa Mittal, who lost her only brother in a road accident in 2016. “It does get lonely most days, even with my husband’s support. My mother categorically said she has nothing to do with the case. It was over the day Siddy died. My father goes to court for the compensation case,” she says.
Mittal’s brother Siddharth Sharma, then aged 32, was returning home from Lajpat Nagar in Delhi on the evening of 4 April 2016 when he was hit by a Mercedes driven by a 17-year-old, barely five minutes from Shilpa’s residence in Civil Lines where he had been living. This was four days before the juvenile behind the wheel of the Mercedes was to turn 18.
Importantly, it was the first case that brought focus back to the Juvenile Justice Act — amended in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gangrape case in order to enable a court of law to try a juvenile aged 16-18 as an adult if accused of a “heinous offence”.
While the Juvenile Justice Board in a 2016 order said the juvenile accused in the case involving Siddharth had committed a “heinous crime” and should be tried as an adult, this was overturned by the Delhi High Court and later the Supreme Court.
Even in the Pune Porsche case, police maintain that they will move the courts for the 17-year-old accused to be tried as an adult.
But according to Mittal, victims in such cases will not get justice until the Juvenile Justice Act is amended again. She cites a 2020 judgment by the apex court in her brother’s case noting that an offence which does not lead to a “minimum sentence” of seven years cannot be treated as a heinous offence and will be treated as a “serious offence” instead.
“Pune Porsche case revived the discussion about parent’s responsibility towards their children in terms of accountability when a crime has taken place. In accident cases, people tend to forget and take it very lightly when someone younger than 18 is behind the wheel. It’s a classic case of how a corrupt system enables perpetrators to get away,” says Mittal.
In Part 3 of the series that highlights cases similar to the Pune Porsche case, ThePrint looks at Shilpa Mittal’s long journey in search of justice for her brother and how this case highlights a major flaw in the Juvenile Justice Act.
‘Our whole world collapsed’
Every time she utters his name, Mittal’s voice chokes and her mind wanders off to the day she last spoke to her brother. Recalling the events of 4 April 2016, she says, “At first we were told that an accident had taken place. I thought to myself that Siddy (Siddharth) must have fallen and it can’t get worse than that. He has been an athlete all his life. How bad could it be, maybe minor fractures; that’s what first came to my mind.”
As the night progressed the family gradually learnt that Siddharth was no more. Mittal was in Mumbai at the time and remembers how a phone call received by her father-in-law at 10.30 pm turned their lives upside down. “It kept growing on us. From an accident to a bad accident and then suddenly, he is no more. He died at the hospital just after 2-3 hours.”
The family later learnt that a good Samaritan had alerted the police and Siddharth was taken to the hospital without delay but the injuries were too serious.
“For a very long time, it felt like a nightmare that would disappear. I went to the hospital and saw him in the morgue. I didn’t know what to tell my parents, they were in Himachal Pradesh. I could not show them my face when they arrived in Delhi. I was just talking to him (Siddharth). Our whole world had collapsed. There were no police when we went to the cremation ground and there was no news about what had happened. I needed to know,” says Mittal, wiping away the tears running down her cheeks.
‘Not just about driving, it’s about judgment’
For nearly 20 hours after the accident, Mittal kept thinking about what might have transpired and who was behind the wheel of the car that hit her brother. Her husband and father went to the police station but were told that no one had been arrested so far.
“Initially we got very superficial responses from the police. I knew what was going on. It’s a Mercedes, so there’s a lot of money involved. After we kept enquiring, the boy along with his father came to the police station and surrendered. They spoke and left. I couldn’t comprehend how someone just comes in, talks and leaves after killing someone with no accountability,” says Mittal.
From that day onwards, she took it upon herself to find the facts of the case. Following an initial struggle of 3-4 days, she figured that CCTV footage could help her put the pieces together. “We found that the main CCTV camera wasn’t working but there was another CCTV camera at the society gate. Another drama ensued as the head of the society who was friends with the juvenile’s father refused to comply. Somehow we managed to get hold of the CCTV footage after a lot of struggle and the police were also involved.”
But as it turned out, getting hold of the CCTV footage was not the hardest part. The hardest part was watching how the speeding Mercedes hit Siddharth who was flung several metres away. From then on, Mittal knocked on all doors — from talking to the media to keep the issue relevant to meeting the then Commissioner of Police Alok Kumar Verma.
This was followed by demonstrations and candlelight marches in support of Mittal’s family.
It was then that the police probe into the case picked up momentum. The investigating team was changed and the juvenile’s father called in for questioning and subsequently booked and arrested for abetting culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The police also added IPC section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) in place of 304A (causing death due to negligence) in the FIR.
As is the norm in most such cases, the family driver initially confessed to being behind the wheel at the time of the accident but later backed out. Police later chargesheeted both the family driver and the juvenile’s father.
The juvenile was in an observation home for 21 days after the accident. Further investigation into the case also revealed that the juvenile had been fined thrice earlier — twice for speeding and once for wrongful parking.
“I don’t want to call these incidents accidents. What is the definition of an accident? It’s when you accidently hit somebody. There is a law in place to disallow minors to drive cars. A minor is going to hit somebody because mentally, emotionally and physically they aren’t equipped to handle a car. This is not just about driving a machine but also about making the correct judgment. It’s not a cycle, a car has the power to kill,” says Mittal.
Section 304 of IPC & gap in JJ Act
For Mittal, findings of the Juvenile Justice Board came as a relief. Having finished its probe into the case, it found that the juvenile committed a “heinous offence” and should be tried as an adult. But the juvenile’s family challenged the order in the Delhi High Court which overturned it. Mittal then filed an appeal against the high court order.
In 2020, the Supreme Court while disposing off her petition stated that the juvenile would not be tried as an adult, noting that the crime didn’t fall under the “heinous” category for offences as required under the Juvenile Justice Act. According to section 2 (33) of the Act, a juvenile can be tried as an adult only in cases of “heinous” offences where the minimum punishment under the IPC or any other law is seven years imprisonment or more.
In the case of Mittal’s brother, the mother of the juvenile while challenging the JJB order approached the high court stating that no “minimum” offence is prescribed under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC. This section warrants a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life or up to 10 years and fine or both.
“In the Pune Porsche case police said they want the minor to be tried as an adult. He, too, has been booked for culpable homicide not amounting to murder but legally he or any other juvenile booked under (section) 304 for accidents can’t be tried as an adult. There is a 2020 judgment on this with a bench flagging the need for a fourth category of offence,” says Mittal.
The 2020 judgment, a copy of which is with ThePrint, shows that Advocate Sidharth Luthra had brought to the court’s notice that a fourth category of offences have been left out by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
“No doubt, as submitted by Mr Luthra there appears to be a gross mistake committed by the framers of the legislation. The legislation does not take into consideration the 4th category of offences,” the bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose noted.
The court also termed this gap in the law as “unfortunate” .
It further stated that this shall remain so till Parliament decides on the matter. To that effect, a copy of the judgment was sent to secretaries in the ministries of Law and Justice, Women and Child Development and Home Affairs, besides the Registrar General and Delhi High Court “who shall ensure the issue raised in this judgment is addressed by Parliament as early as possible or by the Executive by issuing an Ordinance”.
But the needle has hardly moved. For those like Shilpa Mittal, this “unfortunate” gap in the Juvenile Justice Act is why their loved ones are being denied justice.
Mittal tells ThePrint, “My friends ask if anything has been done in the case. I know at the back of their mind they think I keep going to court regularly but nothing will happen. The perception of the common public is like this and it isn’t wrong. It’s been eight years. I still await justice and accountability.”
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)