Who is behind wheels? In high-profile car crashes, no one seems to be 'driving'

NEW DELHI: In the aftermath of a superior roadworthy clang involving a luxury vehicle, a acquainted refrain often echoes done constabulary stations and courtrooms, “He was not driving. I was.

”It is simply a defence that has surfaced repeatedly successful immoderate of astir high-profile mishap cases — peculiarly those involving influential families, celebrities oregon almighty concern figures. The caller Lamborghini clang successful Kanpur has erstwhile again drawn attraction to this pattern.The crash, which injured respective pedestrians, rapidly turned into a quality implicit who was down the wheel. The household of the accused claimed that a chauffeur had been driving astatine the clip of the accident.Investigators, however, cited CCTV footage, eyewitness accounts and different grounds that allegedly placed baccy baron’s lad Shivam Mishra successful the driver’s seat.

The lawsuit has revived scrutiny of a recurring ineligible strategy successful luxury-car crashes: attributing work to a hired driver.

The Pune Porsche lawsuit (2024)

In May 2024, a Porsche allegedly driven by a 17-year-old successful Pune’s Kalyani Nagar country killed 2 IT professionals. The lawsuit sparked nationwide outrage.

According to police, attempts were made to represent the family’s operator arsenic the idiosyncratic astatine the wheel. Investigators aboriginal said the operator was allegedly pressured to instrumentality responsibility. The minor’s begetter and gramps were arrested successful transportation with alleged tampering of evidence.

The lawsuit highlighted not lone questions of juvenile culpability but besides the vulnerability of hired drivers successful high-profile investigations.

Delhi’s Civil Lines clang (2016)

In April 2016, a 32-year-old IT nonrecreational was killed successful a hit-and-run successful Delhi’s Civil Lines country aft being struck by a Mercedes allegedly driven by a minor.Soon aft the incident, the family’s chauffeur approached the constabulary claiming helium had been driving. However, during questioning, helium allegedly told investigators that helium had been pressured to presume responsibility.

Police relied connected forensic investigation and circumstantial grounds to find that the insignificant was down the instrumentality astatine the clip of the crash. The lawsuit reinforced a signifier seen successful earlier investigations — an archetypal assertion by a operator followed by scrutiny of the circumstances nether which the assertion was made.

The Salman Khan lawsuit (2002)

Perhaps the astir wide reported illustration remains the 2002 Mumbai hit-and-run lawsuit involving histrion Salman Khan.On September 28, 2002, a Toyota Land Cruiser rammed into radical sleeping connected a pavement successful Mumbai’s Bandra area, sidesplitting 1 idiosyncratic and injuring 4 others.

The question of who was driving became cardinal to the trial.

Years later, successful 2015, Khan’s operator told a tribunal that helium had been down the instrumentality astatine the clip of the accident. Prosecutors argued that grounds placed Khan successful the driver’s spot and described the operator arsenic a “self-condemned liar”.In 2015, the Bombay precocious tribunal acquitted Khan, granting him the payment of the uncertainty aft noting inconsistencies successful the prosecution’s evidence.

The BMW lawsuit successful Delhi (1999)

The 1999 BMW hit-and-run lawsuit successful Delhi marked 1 of the earliest high-profile instances wherever operator individuality became a flashpoint.On January 10, 1999, a BMW car ran implicit and killed six people, including 3 policemen, astatine Lodhi Road. During the investigation, attempts were reportedly made to suggest that idiosyncratic different than businessman Sanjeev Nanda was driving.

The lawsuit yet hinged connected witnesser grounds and forensic evidence.

In 2008, Nanda was convicted by the proceedings court. The lawsuit underscored the expanding reliance connected forensic reconstruction successful mishap probes.

Kolkata’s Park Street Audi clang (2013)

In April 2013, an Audi ran implicit a postulation constable adjacent Park Street successful Kolkata. During the probe, determination were reported attempts to unreality the individuality of the idiosyncratic driving astatine the clip of impact.Police examined CCTV footage and forensic grounds to hole responsibility. The lawsuit demonstrated however surveillance footage has go a important instrumentality successful resolving disputes implicit operator identity.

Chennai luxury SUV clang (2019)

In Chennai successful 2019, a high-end SUV allegedly caused a fatal accident. Family members claimed a hired operator had been operating the vehicle.Investigators reportedly questioned inconsistencies successful statements and examined method grounds to verify the claim. The lawsuit drew attraction to what galore spot arsenic a predictable defence successful crashes involving almighty individuals.

Gurgaon clang (2017)

In 2017, a luxury car mishap successful Gurgaon resulted successful a pedestrian fatality.

Reports noted conflicting accounts regarding whether the conveyance proprietor oregon a chauffeur had been driving.Investigators relied connected forensic reconstruction and witnesser grounds to found responsibility.

A recurring pattern

Across these cases, definite themes recur. Luxury vehicles. Influential families oregon salient individuals. Serious casualties. And astir immediately, a assertion that a hired operator was responsible.For investigators, determining who was down the instrumentality tin beryllium complex.

Modern mishap probes progressively trust connected CCTV footage, telephone information records, wounded mapping, seat-position investigation and forensic reconstruction. In respective of these cases, method and circumstantial grounds has played a decisive relation successful either reinforcing oregon contradicting archetypal claims.Courts have, successful antithetic cases, reached antithetic conclusions — from acquittals to convictions — depending connected the spot of grounds presented.For families of victims, however, the statement implicit operator individuality tin consciousness secondary to the nonaccomplishment suffered. For hired drivers, these cases sometimes rise uncomfortable questions astir vulnerability and powerfulness dynamics successful moments of crisis.What remains accordant is the pattern: successful high-profile roadworthy crashes, the conflict often begins not lone implicit what happened — but implicit who was astatine the wheel.