In a significant development concerning the 2024 Worli hit-and-run incident, a Mumbai sessions court has formally charged three individuals, including Mihir Shah, his father Rajesh Shah, and driver Rajrushi Rajendrasingh Bidawat. The charges stem from the tragic events of July 7, 2024, when a BMW, allegedly driven recklessly by Mihir Shah, collided with a scooter, leading to the death of Kaveri Nakhwa and injuries to her husband, Pradeep Nakhwa.
Presiding over the case, Additional Sessions Judge Anil D Salunkhe dismissed a request to discharge Rajesh Shah, indicating the presence of prima facie evidence against all defendants. The court found sufficient grounds to charge Rajesh Shah under Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for allegedly causing the disappearance of evidence linked to the crime.
The court also framed charges against Mihir Shah and co-accused Bidawat, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 105 BNS), rash driving (Section 281), negligent act causing grievous hurt (Section 125(b)), mischief (Section 324(4)), and evidence tampering (Section 238). Additional charges under the Motor Vehicles Act and related regulations were also levied.
The FIR, initially filed under the BNS and the Motor Vehicles Act, led to the subsequent arrest and detention of the accused. Following thorough investigations, a detailed chargesheet was submitted at the Sewree magistrate’s court before the case was escalated to the sessions court, given the severity of the culpable homicide charge.
The defense argued for Rajesh Shah’s discharge on the basis of his cooperation with law enforcement and denial of any involvement in evidence destruction. However, the prosecution countered, accusing Rajesh of facilitating his son’s evasion from arrest and medical scrutiny, thus contributing to the disappearance of evidence.
More Read
Further, the defense put forth that Mihir Shah and Bidawat’s actions might be more aligned with the lesser charge under the second part of Section 105 of the BNS, which pertains to acts committed with knowledge but without intent to cause death. Nonetheless, the court, relying on CCTV footage, witness testimonies, and the manner of driving, found a ‘grave suspicion’ of intentional or knowledgeable actions leading to death, justifying the higher charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Representing the defendants was Advocate Nitin Sejpal, while Additional Public Prosecutor Ashwini Rayakar advocated on behalf of the state. The court’s decision underscores the grave nature of the accusations and sets the stage for a detailed examination of the evidence in the upcoming trial.
