[Cyrus Mistry Death Case] "You Want Us To Do The Job Of Magistrate?": Bombay HC To Petitioner Seeking Additional Charges Against Accused

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking inclusion of Section 304 of the IPC i.e., Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder in the death of Cyrus Mistry.

The PIL came up for hearing today before the division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne. The petitioner submitted before the court that there should be more charges against the accused to which the bench asked the petitioner, "What is his locus?"

Advocate Sadiq Ali for the petitioner informed the court that he is public-spirited individual. To which, the court said,

“You can prosecute a hospital for endangering the lives of citizens around you; for that you can seek PIL. The police may add any charges but it is for the Magistrate to consider that".

Advocate Ali told the court that he had evidence that the accused i.e., the driver was under influence of alcohol. The instant plea stated that the petitioner has CCTV footage of the café at which the accused was drinking alcohol at late night on the day of the accident.

Senior Advocate Rafiq Dada appearing for Darius Pandole, who had survived the accident, submitted before the court that, "This campaign must now end. Let him go to the Magistrate”

Senior Advocate Abad Ponda, for accused namely Anahita Pandole argued that it was premised that she was under the influence of alcohol and that tests were conducted. The Chief Public Prosecutor informed the court that the tests were negative.

In September 2022, Cyrus Mistry and Jehagir Pandole died in a car accident while Darius Pandole and Anahita Pandole survived the accident.

The plea stated that the vehicle was having Anti-Lock braking system which allows the driver to compress the brakes and steer the vehicle out of the obstruction range however as she was still in a stupor of alcohol and was over speeding she crashed the vehicle in the protruding shoulder of the wall of the NH48 highway. "It was not an error of judgment on her part therefore her culpability is proved for Section 304, part II to be attracted in the facts of the present case," the plea argued.

Further while arguing from the engineering point of view, the plea stated:

“From an engineering point of view Respondent no.7's braking pressure applied when she saw the protruding L shoulder on the highway, it was only 10% out of 100% which shows that she did not put the brakes at higher pressure which could have averted the collision. The ABS system would have enabled her to steer the vehicle after applying standard brake pressure which would have averted the collision.”

The plea stated that Anahita was busy on phone till 11 PM and also had 7 traffic signal challans pertaining to overspeeding and jumping signals. The petitioner has also prayed that Darius Pandole should also be charged with Section 304 of the IPC as he was the owner of the car and was aware of the drinking habits of Anahita Pandole

Case Title: Sandesh Shivaji Jedhe vs UOI