Delhi Police on 12 August sought permission from court to further probe the case involving a teenager who allegedly ran over a 32-year-old marketing executive while driving his father's Mercedes in April, saying some new facts have emerged in the matter.
The police filed a fresh plea before Additional Sessions Judge Vimal Kumar Yadav claiming it has come to their knowledge that before this hit-and-run case, the boy was also 'challaned' for over-speeding in which he had shown a "false and forged driving licence" to traffic police.
The accused had turned major four days after the 4 April incident.
"Police needs to further investigate the matter as some new facts have emerged. Before this incident, the juvenile was challaned for over-speeding vehicles. He was driving this Mercedes car at the speed of 89 km/hour.
"When a challan was issued, he showed a driving licence to the traffic personnel and claimed that it was issued from Etawah in Uttar Pradesh. A report has been received from the authorities concerned in Etawah which says the driving licence was not issued by them. This shows it was a false and forged driving licence," Special Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava said.
The plea, however, was opposed by senior advocate Ramesh Gupta and advocate Rajiv Mohan, who appeared for the accused.
The court fixed the matter for 5 September and asked the defence counsel to respond how they have a right to oppose the police's plea for further investigation.
Meanwhile, during the day, the court also heard arguments on behalf of the boy on the issue of framing of charges against him and on his appeal challenging the Juvenile Justice Board's order to try him as an adult.
Gupta argued that it was a case of contributory negligence of the victim as he suddenly came in front of the vehicle and was crossing the road.
He said that the victim should have crossed the road at the Zebra crossing which is demarcated for the pedestrians to cross the road.
Police had said in its charge sheet that the boy had fatally run over victim Siddharth Sharma with his father's Mercedes when Sharma was trying to cross a road near Ludlow Castle School in north Delhi on 4 April.
The prosecutor had earlier argued that as per the amended provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the sessions court cannot send back the case to the board and if it thinks that the boy should not be tried as an adult, it has to try the case itself by acting as the board's presiding officer.
In the appeal, the boy has claimed that at best he could be booked for alleged offence of causing death by rash and negligent act and it was not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for which he has been charged.
It has said the boy's previous offences are of traffic violation and not related to accidents. So it's not a ground to convert section 304A of IPC into section 304 of IPC.
The JJB had on 4 June ordered that the boy would face trial as an adult while observing that the offence allegedly committed by him was "heinous".
It is the first of its kind case since the amendment in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 which allowed the Board to transfer cases of heinous offences by children to the sessions court.
The police had on 26 May chargesheeted the boy in JJB for culpable homicide not amounting to murder which entails a maximum of 10 years jail.
Initially, a case under section 304 A of IPC was lodged but later he was booked for the alleged offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sent to reform home.
The charge sheet was filed for alleged offences under IPC sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 279 (driving on a public way so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life) and 337 (causing hurt by an act which endangers human life) against him.
The Board had on 26 April granted bail to the youth who sought the relief to appear in entrance examinations.