Puneet Puneet’s lawyer demands two-year jail term for his client to surrender and return to Australia

He fled Australia after killing a student in a horror car crash in Southbank. Now killer hit-run driver Puneet Puneet is demanding a lenient sentence to return and face justice in Melbourne.

Killer hit-run driver Puneet ­Puneet is demanding Victorian authorities offer him a maximum two-year jail term in return for his surrender to Australia.

Puneet fled the country in the wake of the crash that killed student Dean Hofstee and has since faced court more than 80 times in India as he has sought to dodge extradition.

His lawyer says that Puneet is now “ready to face justice” — but is demanding a lenient sentence in order to come back to Melbourne.

“Let government of Australia give us an offer that he will be sentenced to a maximum of two years and surety of his safe life in jail. He will immediately surrender,” Kanhaiya Kumar Singhal said.

The scene of the crash on City Rd in Southbank that killed Dean Hofstee.

Acting Attorney-General Gavin Jennings hit back last night, saying Victoria’s courts would decide on the appropriate punishment.

“Puneet Puneet needs to return to Victoria to face the consequences of his actions, and we won’t rest until justice is served,” he said.

Puneet faces up to 20 years behind bars for culpable driving causing the death of Mr Hofstee in 2008.

He pleaded guilty before escaping to India on a friend’s passport, spending more than four years on the run until he was arrested on the morning of his wedding.

Mr Singhal said that “going to jail is not an issue” for Puneet, who also pleaded guilty to negligent driving causing serious injuries to Mr ­Hofstee’s friend Clancy Coker.

“He believes in justice. But he is concerned that he will not be given due justice in Australia,” Mr Singhal said

He said when Puneet pleaded guilty in 2008, he was told that he would be given a sentence of 20 to 30 years.

“Is it a reasonable sentence? No, it is not,” Mr Singhal said.

“Even murderers don’t get such sentence.”

Puneet Puneet before he fled Australia

Puneet’s father, left, with Puneet Puneet outside court in India.

The lawyer said the fatal accident — caused by Puneet driving at 150kmh in a 60kmh zone, with a blood alcohol reading of 0.165 — was an “unintentional action”.

“Puneet is a religious person,” Mr Singhal said.

“He understands the pain of Hofstee family. He always prays for them. He regrets why he was driving the car that time. He always repeats that it was just an accident and not a deliberate attempt to kill someone. He is sorry for that.”

Mr Singhal argued that “nothing more punishment is required for him” as Puneet served time behind bars in Delhi during the prolonged legal fight to extradite him.

“Puneet is not running away from law,” he said.

“Keeping him behind the bars in India or Australia doesn’t affect anyone. The purpose is to punish him, if he is guilty.”

Attorney-General Jill Hennessy recently sought the federal government’s assistance in progressing Puneet’s extradition. He is due to face court again on July 15 but, even if his extradition is deemed ­appropriate, the matter must then be considered by the ­Indian government.

Puneet’s mother has previously claimed that her son would not be safe in Australia because “it is a racial country”, and Mr Singhal also suggested racism could affect his client.

He accused Australian authorities of “undue influence” over Puneet’s extradition case and of “pressuring” the Indian government.

PUNEET’S DESPERATE PUSH TO STOP EXTRADITION

GOVERNMENT’S BOLD PLEA TO BRING BACK PUNEET

“The way the matter has been taken over by the Australian Government or being propagated by the people of Australia, there are every chances that the case will be dealt with in prejudice manner, sentence will be given on higher side and thereafter his life in jail there will certainly not be safe,” Mr Singhal said.

“Even if the case is extraditable, there are provisions … that court has power to refuse for the extradition under certain conditions like the racism, health of the accused and the best interest of the person.”

Mr Singhal said his client was “not well” and was suffering from a life-threatening disease.

[e-mail]