New Delhi: As more and more shocking and upsetting details come to the forefront in the Pune Porsche killer case where a super-rich brat from a well-connected family killed two people while driving under the influence and was given preferential treatment by the authorities, Republic Media Network Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, in an exclusive interview, confronted Pune Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar. Here is the full transcript of the interview alongside the video of the actual interview: 

Arnab: My question to Amitesh Kumar, Commissioner of Pune, is that is it only the juvenile justice board or the courts who were manipulated that made a mistake? Or would you think there was a mistake made by the police?

Amitesh Kumar: I would say that I would not be able to comment about the court or the juvenile justice board but I can say that the most stringent possible path has been adopted in this case, right from Sunday morning — the act of applying Section 304 of IPC which is culpable homicide not amounting to murder which has 10 years of punishment. Our sou motu action of moving an application to try him as an adult under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, because the said incident was a heinous crime, was all done on Sunday itself. Much before the media and the public outrage, we had booked the father and the pub owners and managers under Sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which I would say would be the first or maybe one of the very few incidents where the father has been booked and Section 77 has been invoked against those who served liquor to underage people.

Arnab: I just want to intervene there Mr Kumar but you are saying there were cases filed against the pub owners, there were cases filed against the father on why did he allow his son to drive a car but it must be obvious to you that those are lesser offences than the case of murder. I, truly Mr Kumar, am not impressed that you have filed the cases against the father and bar owner. You need to answer why a long rope was given to this boy. Were there two blood samples that were taken? Was there manipulation of the blood samples? Because it is obvious with evidence to me that the boy was drunk. In fact, he drank Rs 49,000 worth of liquor in 90 minutes. Were there two blood samples taken? And why were two blood samples taken if it is true?

Amitesh Kumar: See, number one, it is wrong to say that a long rope was given to the boy. You must understand that whatever best was possible was applied. It was unfortunate and unacceptable to us that the court had rejected both our applications of trying him as an adult and allowing him to go out on bail, despite our efforts that he should be sent to the remand, to the observation home and he should be tried as an adult. So there is absolutely no truth in the fact that a long rope was given. Now two issues on the blood report. Number one, yes two blood samples were collected as a matter of precaution. Just in case, if one blood report gets tampered with, we have the other one with us Number two, let me make it very clear, let me explain the legal position. Here we are not making out a case of 304A IPC which is a bailable offence with a three-year punishment where we say that rash and negligence act, that he was deeply, heavily drunk and under the influence of liquor, and he did not have the knowledge that this act will lead to the death of people.

Arnab: Sir, please tell me whether two blood samples were taken.

Amitesh Kumar: Yes. I said it was taken.

Arnab: Why? When one blood sample can prove that there is alcohol in the bloodstream? My second question is how much was the gap between the two samples?

Amitesh Kumar: The first sample was collected at one hospital and the second sample was taken at another hospital.

Arnab: After how much time?

Amitesh Kumar: The DNA sample had to be taken. There was a gap of around 3-4 hours.

Arnab: Sir, within 3-4 hours, don't you think that alcohol can leave the bloodstream significantly?

Amitesh Kumar: It can.

Arnab: Then why do we allow it to happen, Mr. Kumar? Please answer my question. And my second question to you is, did an NCP MLA from Vadgaon visit the police station?

Amitesh Kumar: He did visit the police station.

Arnab: Why? Why did he visit? Why was he entertained?

Amitesh Kumar: I cannot comment. He was not entertained at all.

Arnab: Why did he visit the police station?

Amitesh Kumar: See, the police station is a public place.

Arnab: No, sir. it is not a public place for an MLA to intervene. I am asking you if you can confirm to me, whether the MLA was trying to put pressure on behalf of the killer?

Amitesh Kumar: Absolutely not.

Arnab: So you are giving a clean chit to the MLA?

Amitesh Kumar: Pardon?

Arnab: Are you giving a clean chit to the MLA? I believe he was putting pressure.

Amitesh Kumar: I told you. You have to look at the end results.

Arnab: Sir, I am looking at the process, not the result. I have been a journalist long enough to know the process determines the outcome. You are also fully aware that the process determines the outcome. Now tell me one thing sir, now that this case comes up and I am determined to follow it, let me ask you, is it true or not that the grandfather of this super-rich brat has worked with Chhota Rajan in the past to carry out the killing of a corporator?

Amitesh Kumar: There is a case on the record.

Arnab: Let me now ask you sir, since you are the Commissioner of Police, is it true that the MCOCA or Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act provisions were not applied against the super-rich grandfather of the super-rich boy?

Amitesh Kumar: Yes, in 2009 when the offence had taken place and the investigation was done by the Police, it was not applied.

Arnab: You tell me, I am asking you, sir. I have every right. The Pune police that you represent did not invoke MCOCA in this case against his grandfather. The Pune police allows an MLA to walk into a police station, two blood samples were taken from Chhota Rajan's partner's grandson who goes and kills 2 people under the influence of alcohol and driving a car worth Rs 2 crores at 240km/hr. How do you expect people to have any faith in the system, sir?

Amitesh Kumar: You have to look at the outcome, Arnab. Look at the outcome.

Arnab: I will look at the process, sir.

Amitesh Kumar: Our stand is vindicated, 100 per cent it is vindicated.

Arnab: Sir your stand is not vindicated, it is a powerful family, sir it is a super rich family of Pune, which is trying to push its way through.

Amitesh Kumar: Our course is affected by what the law says.

Arnab: Sir don't teach me the law, I also understand the law well enough, you can have 304, 304A.

Amitesh Kumar: If you know the law please don't misguide the people, our outcome is very clear.

Arnab: Sir, I am not misguiding the people, I'm telling you, sir, please don't wag your finger at me.

Amitesh Kumar: You will also have to keep your finger down.

Arnab: I will keep my fingers down, but do not try to intimidate me, I know enough about the system, I am asking you now.

Amitesh Kumar: If you can point fingers so can I.

Arnab: I am not pointing fingers, I am asking questions that may not be convenient to you, but I will ask you repeatedly, you tell me why were two blood samples taken after a gap of 3-4 hours?

Amitesh Kumar: To ensure that there is no tampering

Arnab: While you admit the gap of 4 hours can influence the result.

Amitesh Kumar: Primarily to check the DNA sample, that in case the blood was taken at the first instance was the same as that of the accused, that was the reason.

Arnab: As a precaution.

Amitesh Kumar: Yes.

Arnab: Was the result of the two samples the same?

Amitesh Kumar: The results haven't come, I told you, the results are awaited, it is with the forensic department.

Arnab: Now tell me, you are also saying that the MLA who came in didn't come to influence, after how much time did he enter the police station, after the accident?

Amitesh Kumar: He came in the early morning hours.

Arnab: What time?

Amitesh Kumar: It would be around 7-7:30 AM.

Arnab: He came into a police station at a time when the super-rich brat had killed 2 people 4 hours earlier, right?

Amitesh Kumar: Right.

Arnab: Obviously, he came to petition on behalf of the killer.

Amitesh Kumar: He may come for whatever he can.

Arnab: No sir, you can't say he may come, this is a transparent society, a police commissioner cannot tell a channel, he may come, so what? I want to know, what did he come for sir? I want to know, I have the right to ask you. 

Amitesh Kumar: Yes, you have the full right, the audience has the full right to know. You have to realise that a public representative has the right to visit the police station, we cannot bar him from entering. 

Arnab: A public representative has no right, Mr Kumar, to intervene in an investigation. 

Amitesh Kumar: Everyone is free to say whatever they want to, what we have to do depends on the law, that is what we have done, I am very very clear.

Arnab: I am not clear about one more thing, when you take the blood sample, you get the results in 2-3 hours. 60 hours have passed and there is no blood report yet.

Amitesh Kumar: We are trying to expedite this with the forensic department, which is a different department, there is a procedure. They will give it, we are trying to expedite it as early as possible.

Arnab: I will ask you again, when the MLA came, what did he tell the police at the police station?

Amitesh Kumar: I will not be able to comment, he didn't meet me. But I can tell you Arnab, look at the course which we have taken 

Arnab: Sir, the course which has been taken is this. I know sir, doing the job is something not done by most of the media, but I have a bad habit and I will do it, this is a terrible case. I have been at the vanguard of fighting against VVIP racism and I can't tolerate this. I am asking you, whether there were influential calls made to the police in the first 15 hours before he was released. Did anybody of influence or with political connections otherwise call, or contact you or any of your subordinate officers or officials?

Amitesh Kumar: Absolutely no.

Arnab: Why didn't you move an application to the higher court immediately after he was let off?

Amitesh Kumar: On Sunday, the order came around 5:30 and we moved an application on Monday morning at 10:30. 

Arnab: Would you have moved the application if there had been no pressure from the media?

Amitesh Kumar: We would have moved it anyway. I made it clear at 5:30 when the order came that we would appeal to the higher court and we would exercise all the judicial options. We have to ensure that the juvenile is tried as an adult and is sent to the observation home.

Arnab: I believe that the members of the juvenile justice board should be sacked and possibly investigated. Will you investigate their role in this case because their role also needs to come under scrutiny? You can't say they are sitting on a chair and they can't be investigated. There is every possibility that there has been pressure put on them or influence put on them. Will you investigate that?

Amitesh Kumar: It would not be prudent for me to comment on this.

Arnab: Why would you not investigate? Will you take their call details record, investigate them, find out who spoke to them, find out who visited them? Why should I accept the system the way it is run? I am saying we have to change the system. We have to first start by investigating the members of the juvenile justice board. They are not god, and they are not above scrutiny.

Amitesh Kumar: Every stakeholder has the right to see that their system works as per law and I can only tell you the Pune city police is trying its best. We are investigating all angles and will take the case to its logical conclusion. 

Arnab: Mr Amitesh Kumar, I will follow up with you on this case. I am really surprised by some of the answers that you gave me, especially about the blood reports and the visit of the MLA. I think that the MLA also should be put under the bar for trying to influence an investigation. 

Amitesh Kumar: I am sorry if I was not able to satisfy but I am certainly open to questioning.