BMW Case Judgement

SCNo.25/99,FIRNo.17/991StateVsSanjeevNandaetc.
Judgement Dt.2.9.2008
THECOURTOFSH.VINODKUMAR
ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE,NEWDELHI
SessionsCaseNo.25/99
FIRNo.17/99
PSLodhiColony
U/s304/201IPC
StateVs 1. SanjeevNanda
S/oSh.SureshNanda
R/oD108DefenceColony,NewDelhi.
2. ManikKapoor
S/oSh.SudhirKapoor
R/o7BirbalRoadBijangPuraExtn.
NewDelhi.
3. BholaNath
S/oSh.MotiLal
R/o103,SunderNagar,NewDelhi.
4. ShyamSinghRana
S/oSh.NandanSinghRana
R/o50GolfLink,NewDelhi.
5. RajeevGupta
S/oSh.VedParkashGupta
Dateofinstitution:24.4.1999
Dateofconcludingthefinalarguments:26.8.2008
Dateofjudgement:2.9.2008
JUDGEMENT
Intheearlyhoursof10.1.99onevehiclecrashedintoafew
personsontheroad and killedsixofthem. Onesurviver(i.e
PW2ManojMalik)statesthattheoffendingvehiclewasatruck.
Prosecutionalleges,itwasaBMWcar. Theprosecutionalleges
thattheoffendingvehiclewasbeingdrivenbyaccusedSanjeev
Nanda.Defencevehementlydeniesit.Prosecutionallegesitis
anoffenceU/S304(1)IPC.Lddefencecounselsarguethatat
themostitisacaseof304AIPC.Onewitnesssaysthathesaw
the entire incident but defence asserts he was never there.
Prosecutionallegesthatsomeoftheaccusedpersonswashedthe
offendingvehicletodestroytheevidence,whereasdefencepleads
falseimplications.
Thesearethemainquestionswhichrequiredetermination
bythiscourtbutthistrialposesgreaterquestionsastowhatis
themeaningoffairtrialandhowshouldthecourtproceedwhen
thewitnessesarebeingwonoverandthetrialisbeinghijacked
bythehighandmighty.Thetrialsawmanydramatictwistsand
turnsanditisaneloquentwitnesstoacommonstateofaffairsin
thecriminaltrials.Ofcourseallthetrialsdonotgetthepublicity
asthepresentone. Thisisacasewhereitisneededthatthe
entirecriminaljusticesystemshouldsituptofindeffectiveways
andmeanstotackleasituationwherewealthyandhighlyplaced
persons are able to thwart the entire course of justice and
thereafterattheend,claimbenefitofdoubtasamatterofright.
This is a trial in which entire criminal justice system

crumbled,thoughahopeforjusticestillremainedbecauseofthe
watchfuleyesofvigilantfourthestate.
THEPROSECUTIONCASE
The prosecution alleges that one BMW car number

M312LYPwaspurchasedinthenameofMsSonaliNandaand
thesamehadrecentlyreachedattheresidenceofitsowner.The
samewasyettoberegisteredwiththeTransportAuthoritiesin
India. ItisallegedthataccusedSanjeevNanda,thebrotherof
SonaliNandadrovethisvehiclefromherresidenceandattended
apartyatsomefriend'shousewherehegotbadlydrunk. After
attending this party, he drove back the car at about 4 am on
10.1.99. AccusedManikKapurandoneSidharthGupta(since
discharged)werealsosittinginthesaidcar.
ItisallegedthatManojMalik(PW2)startedfromhishouse
toleavehisfriendsnamelyNasir,MehendiHasanandhisfriend
GulabatNizamudinrailwaystationonfoot.Whentheyreached
at about 4.30 am near petrol pump, Lodhi Road, three police
officialsnamelyconstableRajan(CRPF),constableRamrajand
constable Peru Lal both of Delhi Home Guard who were on
checkingdutystoppedthesepersonsandstartedcheckingthem.
InthemeantimeaBMWcarhavingno.M312LYPbeingdriven
byaccusedSanjeevNandacameatanextremelyhighspeedand
hittheabovestatedsevenpersons.Itisallegedthatonbeinghit,
thosepersonsflewintheairandfellonthebonnetandthewind
screenofthecarandsomeofthemrolleddownandcameunder
the bonnet of the car. The car took a right turn and hit the
central verge. The persons who came under the car were
draggeduptothatpoint.Manojwhohadfallenonthebonnet
fellatsomedistance.ThecarstoppedthereandaccusedSanjeev
whowasdrivingthevehiclecameoutfromthecar.Itisalleged
that accused Manik Kapur, who was travelling in the said car
withaccusedSanjeevNandatoldhimtorush.AccusedSanjeev
Nandasawbeneaththebonnetofthecar. Theinjuredpersons
wereshoutingandcryingbutignoringtheinjuredpersonswho
hadstuckunderthebonnetofthecar,accusedSanjeevNanda
droveawaythecaratahighspeedtowardsDayalSinghCollege.
It is alleged that the persons who had been injured and the
persons,whohadcomeunderneaththecar,werecrying.Despite
thisfactaccusedSanjeevNandadroveawaythecarandinthis
process,thethreepersonswhowereentangledunderthebonnet
ofthecarweredragged,crushedandfellonebyoneontheroad.
ItisallegedthataccusedSanjeevNandaparkedthisvehiclein
thehouseofSidharthGupta ie50,GolfLinksandhisfatherie
accused Rajeev Gupta with the help of his servants namely
accusedShyamSinghandaccusedBholaNathwashed thecar
anddestroyedthematerialevidence.
ProsecutionallegesthatthePW1Harishanker,anAttendant
onthepetrolpumpsawtheincidentofblackBMWcarhittingthe
people. He immediately informed telephonically Sh. Brijesh
Virmani (PW17) hisemployer/theManagerofCarCareCenter,
LodhiRoad,whointurninformedthePCRatno.100whointurn
flashedthemessagetoconcernedlocalpolice.Thepolicestation
Lodhi Colony received this information and the same was
recordedasDDno.27A.Pursuanttothisinformation,SIKailash
Chandreachedatthespot.TillthenafewPCRvanshadalready
reachedthere. Firstofall, ASI DevenderSingh (PW36) the
InchargeofEagle11 PCR reachedatthespotand tookaway
injured Manoj Malik to the hospital. He also flashed the
messagestootherPCRswhoreachedthere.TheotherPCRvans
tooktheremaininginjuredordeceasedpersonstothehospital.
InspectorJagdish Pandey(PW13) theinchargeofsouthdistrict
PCRVanalsoreachedatthespotandflashed messagetocall
SHO.
SIKailashChand (PW58) wrotearukkainwhichhehad

describedthesceneofcrime. Asperthisdescriptionhefound
threepersonsnamelyconstableRamraj,constableRajanandone
morepersondeadandhecametoknowthatfourotherinjured
persons have been taken away by the PCR in the hospital. SI
KailashChandfoundonebrokennumberplateandwhenitwas
assembled,itwasfoundtobeM312LYPandonit ParkLane
andBMWwaswritten.OneblackcolourpieceofBumperand
rearviewmirrorglassofavehiclewerefoundscatteredupto
100125 feet. Headofonepersonwasfoundcrushed. There
were skid marks of a vehicle on the spot. The body of one
constablenamelyRamRajwasfoundcrushedandhisrightleg
wasfoundatadistanceof1015feetaway. ThebellyofCt.
RajanKumarwasalsofoundburstandthebloodwasflowingon
theroadforquitesomedistance.Allthethreedeadbodieswere
senttoAIIMShospitalbyambulance.Therefore,itwasclearto
SIKailashChandthattheoffendingvehiclewasablackcolour
BMW car having a number plate bearing no. M312LYP.
Consideringthesceneofcrime,herecommendedregistrationof
FIRU/S338/304IPC. Therukkawasdespatchedtothepolice
stationwheretheFIREXPW18/Awasregistered.
ProsecutionallegesthatwhenSI Jagdish Pandey(PW13)

InchargeofthePCRreachedatthespot,hefoundatrailofoilon
theroadstartingfromtheplaceofoffence.Hefollowedthetrail
andreached50GolfLinks.SHOVimleshYadavalsoreachedat
thespot. Thegateofthishousewasclosed.Whenthepolice
officialspeepedthroughthesidehingeofthegate,theyfound
thataccusedRajeevGupta,BholaNathandShyamSinghwere
washing a damaged black BMW car. The police got the gate
opened.Itisallegedthatthiscarwasnothavinganumberplate
anditsbrokenbumperandlightsappearedtobesimilartothe
broken bumper and light pieces found at the spot near petrol
pump. Oneparklanestickerwasalsoaffixedonthiscar. The
bloodwasalsonoticedintherearleftsidewheelofthecar.On
querybythepolice,RajeevGuptatoldthatthecarbelongedto
SanjeevNandawhowasafriendofhissonSidharthGuptaand
thattheyhadgonetoDefenceColonyattheresidenceofSanjeev
Nanda. SIUlhasGiriwassenttothehouseofaccusedSanjeev
Nanda at Defence Colony and he brought accused Sanjeev
Nanda,andManikKapurandSidharthGuptato50GolfLinks.
As soon as all the three accused persons reached at the spot,
accusedSanjeevNandaaskedaccusedRajeevGupta''Kyacar
Dhul Gai ?''. Police apprehended all the accused persons
including Sidharth Gupta and sent them for their medical
examination. It is alleged that at that time the Investigating
OfficerobservedaninjuryonthelipofaccusedSanjeevNanda.
Alltheaccusedweremedicallyexamined. Asper the

MLCofaccusedSanjeevNanda,preparedbyDr.T.MiloofAIIMS
Hospital,SanjeevNandawasbroughttocasualtyofAIIMSby
HCNandKishorewithallegedhistoryofconsumingalcohol.
Thepupilsofhiseyeswerebilaterallydilated.Thespeechof
coherent and gaitunsteady. Smellofalcoholwaspresent.
Therewasbloodclotinleftnostril. Hecomplainedpainin
thenoseandlipsandfollowinginjurieswereobserved:
1. One lacerated wound in
the upper lip .2 x .5 cm.
Size with swelling and
bloodclot.
2. One lacerated wound in
the lower lip .1 x .6 cm.
Withswellingandshowing
bloodclot.
ThebloodsampleofaccusedSanjeevNandawastakenby
thedoctorwhichwassenttoFSL. Onreceivingthissampleon
12.1.1999,doctorMadhulikaSharma (PW16), SeniorScientific

OfficercumChemicalExaminer foundontestingthesamethat
the blood sample gave positive test for presence of 0.115 %
weight/volumeethylealcohol.HerreportisEx.PW16/Awhichis
dated15.1.99.
Atabout10amon10.1.1999,policecalledNageshKumar
Wadera (PW29) a Finger Print Expert who lifted the Finger
Printsfromthevariouspartsofthecarat50GolfLinksitself.
ThecarwaslaterontakentothepolicestationLodhiColony.On
11.1.99 Senior Scientific Officer D.S Chakoutra (PW31) was
calledatthepolicestationandheinspectedthecaragain. He
liftedsomebloodlyingonthesteeringofthevehicle.Asperthe
reportofSh.D.S.Chakotra,thisbloodstainwasofBgroup.
ImayaddherethattheanotherbloodsampleofSanjeev
NandatakenatAIIMShospitalwassentforchemicalexamination
butnoopinioncouldbegivenregardingthebloodgroupbecause
asperreport Ex.PW31/E thebloodwasfoundputrefied. Itis
pertinenttonotethatthisbloodsamplewasreceivedbyFSLon
3.4.99 i.e. after about three months of the incident. Later on
duringtrial,accusedSanjeevNandafiledhisownbloodgroup
reportandasperthisreport,hisbloodgroupisBpositive.
On 10.1.99 SI Kailash Chand prepared a site plan

EXPW58/B. Thissiteplanmentionsthesceneofcrimeingreat
details. On 23.3.99, on the instructions of SI Kailash Chand,
roughnotesofthespotwerepreparedbySIMadanPal(PW19),
adraftsmanandonthebasisoftheseroughnotes,heprepareda
scaledsiteplanEx.PW19/A.
Mechanical inspection of the vehicle was got conducted

and as per the mechanical inspection report Ex.PW14/B
prepared by Devinder Singh, the steering oil was found
finishedinoilreserve.Thereportmentionsthedamageonthe
carindetail.
Thepostmortemofthedeadbodieswasgotconducted.
On11.1.99thepoliceproducedaccusedSanjeevNandaand
otheraccusedpersonsbeforeSh.V.K.Sharma,Ld.Metropolitan
Magistrate and sought two days police remand. On police
remand, accused Sanjeev Nanda got recovered his woolen
sweaterandajeans(bothofwhichwerebloodstains)fromhis
house D108, Defence Colony, New Delhi. It is alleged by the
prosecution that accused Sanjeev Nanda was wearing these
clothesatthetimeoftheoffence.Boththeseclotheswereseized
vidememoEx.PW32/A.
On 15.1.99, Sunil Kulkarni (examined as court witness)

appearedasawitnessofaccident.TheTestIdentificationParade
wasarrangedfor18.1.99butaccusedSanjeevNandarefusedto
takepartinthesame.On21.1.99,astatementofSunilKulkarni
was recorded by Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, the then Ld.
MetropolitanMagistrateunderSection164CrPC.
Aftercompletionofinvestigation,chargesheetwasfiled.
THECHARGE
On these accusations, charges were framed on 3.8.99

againsttheaccusedpersons. ChargeunderSection201/34IPC
was framed against accused Sanjeev Nanda, Manik Kapur and
SidharthGuptaforrunningawayfromthespotwithintentionto
screenthemselvesfromlegalpunishment.
Another charge under Section 201/34 IPC was framed

against accused Rajeev Gupta, Shyam Singh Rana and Bhola
Nathforcausingcertainevidenceoftheoffencetodisappear
bywashingthecartoremovebloodstainsfromit.
Another charge under Section 304(I)/308/35 IPC was

framed against accused Sidharth Gupta. However he was
dischargedbyHon'bleHighCourtlateron.
Another charge under Section 304(I)/308/34 IPC was

framed against accused Sanjeev Nanda and Manik Kapur for
causingthedeathsofRajanKumar,PeruLal,RamRaj,Mehandi
Hasan,NasirandGulabandforattemptingtocommitculpable
homicidenotamountingtomurderofManojMalik.
Alltheaccusedpersonspleadednotguiltyandclaimedtrial.
PROSECUTIONWITNESSES
In order to prove its case prosecution examined as

manyas61witnesses.
PW1 Hari Shanker Yadav is an employee of Petrol
PumpknownasCarCareCenteratLodhiRoad,NewDelhi.He
testifiedthatonevehiclecameatafastspeedfromthesideof
Nizamuddin. In the accident some persons had fallen down,
received injuries and also died. He testified that he was so
frightenedthathewentinsidethepetrolpump. Inrespectof
otherdetails,thewitnessdidnotsupporttheprosecutioncase.
PW2 Manoj Malik is the injured witness. In the
monthofJanuary1999hewasstayingatCGOComplex,Lodhi
RoadandwasworkingthereattheDhabaofKailashChand.He
testifiedthathewasgoingtowardstheRailwayStationwithhis
twofriends.Theywerestoppedbythepolice.Hetestifiedthat
theywerestandinginthecenteroftheroadandone truck hit
them.Duetothisreasonthethreepoliceofficialsandtwoofhis
friends were killed and he himself was injured. In cross
examination he testified that he was told by one member of
Parliament in Orisa that he should go to Delhi and contact
advocateMr.ManojandMsSantoshMishra. Thiswitnessdid
notsupporttheprosecutioncasebutinhiscrossexaminationby
Sh.R.K.Anand,adv.foraccusedSanjeevNanda,hetestifiedthat
after two or four minutes the truck stopped at a little
distance.
PW3Ct.SunilKumar waspostedasconstableatPS
LodhiColonyon10.1.99.HehadtakenaccusedSidharthGupta
toAIIMSforhismedicalexaminationandcollectedthemedical
papersfromthehospital.
PW4 Ct. Vikram Singh took accused Shyam Singh
RanaforhismedicalexaminationatAIIMS.
PW5Ct.BanwariLal wassenttoAIIMSalongwith
accusedBholaNathforhismedicalexamination.
PW6Dr.S.K.Gupta conductedpostmortemonthe
deadbodyofMehandiHasanS/oAbdulJafar20yearsmale.He
foundtheabrasionsandlaceratedwoundsandopinedthecause
of death to be an anti mortem head injury produced by blunt
force.
PW7Suresh hadgonetothemortuaryofAIIMSon
11.1.99,whereheidentifiedthedeadbodyofhisbrotherinlaw
PeruLalS/oGhasiRam.
PW8AbdulJabbar isthefatherofdeceasedMehndi
Hasan. Hehad gonetothemortuaryofAIIMS on17.1.99 to
identifythedeadbodyofhissonMehendiHasan.
PW9SunilwasworkingasamechanicatDalipMotors
Workshop at Mehar Chand Market, Lodhi Colony in January
1999.Ontheaskingofthepolice,heopenedthedamagedhead
lightofleftsideofBMWcar.Thesamewasseizedbythepolice
vidememoEx.PW9/A.
PW10Dr.T.MilomedicallyexaminedAccusedManik
Kapur. Reportinthisregardis Ex.PW10/A. Healsoexamined
accusedBholaNath.ReportinthisregardisEx.PW10/D.Dr.T
MiloalsoexaminedaccusedRajeevGupta.ReportisEx.PW10/F.
On10.1.99hehadalsoexaminedaccusedSanjeevNandavide
MLCEx.PW10/G.
PW11ASIRamAvadh wasondutyonPCRVanDL
IV3582onthenightintervening9/10.1.99.On10.1.99atabout
4:15 am he received an information from Eagle 1 and he
alongwithInspectorJagdishPandeyreachedintheGypsyatthe
placeofoffence.HealsoaccompaniedInspectorJagdishPandey
to50,GolfLinks.
PW12Ct.JamshedAlihadgonetohouseNo.50Golf
Linkson10.1.99alongwithSIBegaRam,HCNandKishore,Ct.
Sunil Kumar, Ct. Vikram, Ct. Banwari and Ct. Inder Mal and
assistedtheinvestigation.
PW13Inspector Jagdish Pandey wasondutyfrom
8:00 pmto 8:00 AMasChecking Oficer, South Zone, PCR on
Police Gypsy No. DL 1 V 3582 along with the staff ASI Ram
Avadh, Ct. Gunman Sunder Pal and Ct. Driver Sham Singh
reachedatthespot.Hefollowedanoiltrailandreachedat50,
GolfLinkwherehefoundaccusedRajeevGupta,ShyamSingh
andBholaNathwashingtheBMWcar.
PW14Sh.DavinderSinghinspectedtheBMWcaron
6.2.99atLodhiColony,PoliceStationandafterexaminationhe
gavehisreportEx.PW14/B.
PW15Sh.S.C.Gupta isthe DirectorandIncharge

MeteorologicalOffice,SafdarjungAirport,NewDelhi. Hegave
the weather report Ex.PW15/B of 10.1.99 at 5:30 am. He
testifiedthatSIKailashChandmovedanapplicationon10.1.99
atabout4.50p.mtogivetheweatherreport.Asperhisreport,
the visibility on 10.1.99 at 5.30 am was 1000 metres at
SafdarjungAirport.
PW16 Dr. Madhulika Sharm is Senior Scientific
Officer cum Exofficio ChemicalExaminer,FSL MalviyaNagar,
NewDelhi.SheprovedherreportEx.PW16/A.Asperthisreport,
thebloodsampleofSanjeevNandagavepositivetestforethyl
alchoholandwasfoundtocontain0.115%weight/volume.
PW17Sh.BrijeshVirmaniistheManagerofCarCare
Center,PetrolPump,LodhiRoad.On10.1.99atabout4.40am,
he received a telephonic call from Harishanker, the telephone
attendant who informed that some serious accident has taken
placeinfrontof thePetrolPump. Thiswitnessinformedthe
PoliceControlRoomattelephoneNo.100.
PW18HCSuratSinghwaspostedatPSLodhiColony
asDutyOfficerfrom12midnightto8:00aminthemorningof
10.1.99. Onreceiptofrukkaat7.20am, herecordedFIRNo.
17/99EXPW18/A.
PW19SIMadanPalistheDraughtsman.On23.3.99
ontheinstructionsofSIKailashChandhevisitedtheplaceof
incident.Hemaderoughnotesatthespotandthenon24.3.99
hepreparedscaledsiteplanEx.PW19/Aattheplaceofincident.
PW20 Rajesh Kumar is the Director of M/s R. U.
ImportExportPrivateLtd.HehandedovertoSIKailashallthe
relvantdocumentsoftheBMWcaron14.1.99.Thedocuments,
whichwerehandedovertothepolice,wereregardingthecustom
clearanceoftheBMWCar.HetestifiedthatBMWcarNo.M312
LYPwasclearedinthenameofSonaliNanda,R/o4,Prithviraj
Road,NewDelhi.
PW21SIR.D.Pandey tookapulandaandasample
sealofCMOAIIMSon12.1.99anddepositedthesameatFSL
MalviyaNagarvideRCNo.203/21.
PW22Ct.PrithviRajwasdeputedtoguardthedead
body of Mehendi Hassan at Mortuary AIIMS Hospital from
16.1.99to17.1.99. Healsoreceivedthebloodsamplesofthe
deceased from the hospital and the clothes of the deceased
whichweretakeninpossessionbyHeadConstableVijayPalvide
memoEXPW22/B.
PW23 Ct. Inder Mal along with SI Mega Ram had
taken the accused Rajeev Gupta for medical examination on
10.1.99.
PW24 Ct. Manohar Lal was on duty on PCR Van
whichtookinjuredManojtoHospital.
PW25 Bajinder Singh was working as a Security
GuardinGroupForceCompanyinthemonthofJanuary1999.
On 9.1.99 he was on duty as Security Guard at Kothi No 4,
PrithvirajRoad. Hebroughtaregistermaintained atthesaid
residenceforentryandexitofthecars.Hetestifiedthatasper
thisregister,theBMWCarNo.M312LYPwastakenoutfrom
theKothiat18.55hoursbyone'Baba'.Hedidnotsupportthe
prosecution case that accused Sanjeev Nanda is also called
Baba.
PW26Sh.RamDevaidentifiedthedeadbodyofone
PeruLalS/oGhasiRam.
PW27RajinderSinghidentifiedthedeadbodyofhis
nephewRamRajS/oRajpal.
PW28RajinderKeshav carriedouttheinspectionof
thecarregistrationno.M312LYPandgavereportinthisregard
Ex.PW28/A. Thiswitnessfoundthat steeringandbrakesof
thecarwereOK.
PW29Sh.Nagesh Kumar Wadera was posted as a

FingerPrintExpertinSouthernWingCrimeTeam,R.K.Puram
on10.1.99.Henoticedanddeveloped18chanceprintswiththe
helpofgraydevelopingpowderandpreparedreportEx.PW29/A
tothiseffect.
PW30HCRajpalhadgonetomortuaryon11.1.99of
AIIMSalongwithHCVijayPalontheinstructionofI.O.Heisa
witnesstohandingoverthedeadbodiestotheirrelatives.
PW31Mr.D.S.Chakoutra inspectedaBMWcaron
11.1.99inthepolicestation. Helifted bloodstainsfromthe
steeringofthecar.Onexamination,thisbloodwasfoundtobe
ofBgroup.However,itsRhfactorcouldnotbeidentified.
PW32HCJagbirSinghon11.1.99alongwithKailash
ChandSI, SIUlhasGiriandaccusedSanjeevNandavisitedthe
houseD108,DefenceColony,NewDelhiandheisawitnessto
the recovery of blood stained Jeans and Jersey/Sweater of
accusedSanjeevNandafromhouseNoD108,DefenceColony.
PW33SIBegaRamalongwithCt.NandKishore,Ct.
Sunil,Ct.Vikram,Ct.InderMal,Ct.Jamshed,Ct.Banwarigot
medically examined accused Sanjeev Nanda, Sidharth, Manik,
ShamSingh,BholaNathandRajeevGuptainAIIMSHospital.
PW34Ct.SadhiRamwasagunmanonPCRvehicle
no.Eagle11on11.1.99.ASIDavinderwastheinchargeofthat
PCRGypsyanddriverCt.Manoharlalwasalsowithhim.They
reachedattheplaceofoffenceandpickedupinjuredManojto
hospital.
PW35Surinder hadidentified thedead bodyofhis
elderbrotherRamRajon11.1.99inthemortuaryofAIIMS.
PW36ASIDavinderSinghalongwithHCSadhiRam,
GunmanandthedriverManoharLalwereonthepatrollingduty
inEastNizamuddinAreainthePCRGypsy.Hereachedthespot
onreceivingawirelessmessageaboutanaccidentandtookaway
theinjuredManojtoAIIMShospital.
PW37Ct.JaganLal onreceivingofDDNo.27Ahe
alongwithKailashChandSIreachedinfrontofpetrolPumpCar
CareCenteratLodhiRoad.Healsotooktherukkapreparedby
SI Kailash Chand to police station and after getting the FIR
registered,camebacktothespot.
PW38 C SI Vidya Nand was on duty on a PCR
Vehicle,No.14andonreceivingamessagefromControlRoom
about one accident at Lodhi Road in front of Car Care Center
Petrol Pump, he reached at the spot and took one injured
MehendiHasantohospitalinPCRVan.Thisinjuredlateron
expiredinthehospital.
PW39ASISawaiLal alongwithCt.AmarSinghand
Ct.RakeshKumardriveron9/10.1.99wereonpatrollingdutyin
PCRvehicleEagle13. Onreceivingthe messageat4:53AM
about some accident in front of Car Care Center petrol Pump,
LodhiRoad,hereachedatthespot.
PW40 HC Nand Kishore was posted as Head
Constableon10.1.99atPSLodhiColony.Atabout5.15amhe
reachedinfrontofCarCareCentrePetrolPump.Hefoundthat
oneofthedeadbodieswasofconstableRambhaj,anotherdead
bodywasofCRPFconstableRajan.Heisawitnesstovarious
memospreparedbySIKailashatthespot.Healsoreachedat
50,GolfLinksandfoundthatthecarhadbeenrecentlywashed.
PW41 Ct. Girish Kumar was posted at AIIMS on
10.1.99asDutyConstable.Hehandedoverthebloodsampleof
SanjeevNandaandsamplesealtoSIBegaRamwhoseizedthe
samevidememoEx.PW41/A.
PW42MsAlkawasworkingasaReceptionistinHotel
ShivaContinentalinwhichwitnessSunilKulkarniwasalloteda
RoomNo.102on8.1.99.Sheprovedareceivedofadvanceof
Rs1000/paidbySunilKulkarniasEXPW42/A. Shetestified
thataspertherecord/registerEXPW42/Bmaintainedbythem,
SunilKulkarnileftthehotelat12.30pmon9.1.99.
PW43ASIDhianSinghwasondutyonaPCRVan,
Victor 22 at thetimeofoffence andhe alongwith hisstaff
reached at the spot in the PCR Van. He removed one of the
injuredwhosenamewasrevealedasPeruLaltoAIIMS.
PW44HCVijaypalSinghistheMalkhanaMohrar.
PW45Ct.DarhinderwaspostedasDutyConstableat
AIIMSon9/10.1.99.
PW46F.C.ChauhanDSPidentifiedthedeadbodyof
Ct. Rajan Kumar and signed the documents which is
Ex.PW46/A.
PW47 SI Sada Vriksh Yadav got the postmortem
done on 11.1.99 in respect of dead body of Peru Lal,Gulab,
Rajan,RamRaj,NasirandMehendiHasan.
PW48Sh.Mohd.Samsheridentifiedthedeadbodyof
Mohd.NasirinmortuaryofAIIMS.
PW49Dr.SunilKumarconductedthepostmortemon
11.1.99onMohd.Nasir30yearsmale.
PW50MeerShamsheridentifiedthedeadbodyofhis
nephewNasirMohdandMohdGulab.
PW51OmBirSinghwasondutyatPCRvehicleNo.
Eagle16. He pickedup NasirS/oAbdulShakur,whowasin
injuredconditionandtookhimtoAIIMShospitalandgothim
admittedvideMLCNo.2482/99throughconstableonduty.
PW52Sh.A.K.JainistheDevelopmentOfficer/AAO,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. 34, Kapashera, New Delhi. He
testifiedthathehadinsuredtheBMWcarinquestion.
PW53 Bannu Singh is a Sub Inspector in 86th
BattalionofCRPF.Hetestifiedthattheirsoldiers(Sipahi)used
tobedeputedinvariouspolicestationsfor dutyandconstable
RajanKumarwaspostedinLodhiColonynearCareCarCentre
on the said date. He identified the dead body of Ct. Rajan

Kumar.
PW54KirtiRamUnyalbroughtthesummonedrecord
including MLC No. 2740 EXPX of Rajeev Gupta from AIIMS
Hospital.
PW55InspectorVimleshYadav waspostedasSHO
PSLodhiColonyon9.10.99.Shereachedatthespotalongwith
SIKailashChandandconstableJaganLal. Shereceivedawire
less messagefromInspector Jagdish Pandey who reached 50,
GolfLinks.Shenoticedthatthecarwasbeingwashed.Shegot
thegateofthehouseopenedandfoundthedamagedBMWcar.
ShedirectedSIKailashChandtoproceedwiththeinvestigation
anddirectedSIUlhasGiritoreachD108,DefenceColonywhere
accused Sanjeev Nanda, Manik Kapur and Sidharth Gupta had
gone. She also called the photographer and the Crime Team
andsentalltheaccusedpersonsformedicalexamination.The
vehiclewasseizedandsenttopolicestation.On15.1.99,Sunil
Kulkarniappearedaswitnessofaccident.ShetestfiedthatTIP
was got arranged but accused Sanjeev Nanda refused to take
partinTIPproceedings.ThestatementU/.S164CrPCofwitness
SunilKulkarniwasalsogotrecorded.
PW56 Sh. R. K. Chauhan was working as
Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.1.99, New Delhi. Sh. R. K.
Chauhan, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded the
statementU/S164CrPCofwitnessSunilLaxmanKulkarni.The
sameisEx.PW56/B.
PW57 Ms Renu Bhatnagar was posted as
MetropolitanMagistrateon16.1.99inPatialaHouseCourts.On
18.1.99shereachedTiharJailatabout2:25pmforconducting
theTIPofaccusedSanjeevNanda.Accusedhadrefusedtojoin
theTIP.
PW58 SI Kailash Chand is the initial Investigating
Officer.Hepreparedtherukka,gotFIRregisteredandcollected
thematerialevidencefromthespot.
PW59Ct.Ramavtar waspostedasphotographeron
10.1.99inSouthDistt.DCPOffice.Onthatdayonreceiptofthe
informationhetookthephotographsofthesceneofoccurrence
from different angles. Negatives of which are Ex.PW59/1 to
59/18.Hehadalsopreparedavideofilmatthespot.Thevideo
filmcoverstheareafromtheplaceofaccidentto50GolfLinks
where the accident car was found parked. The video film is
Ex.PW59/19. During trial, the video was converted into the
C.Dwhicharepartofjudicialfile.
PW60 Ulas Giri is the second Investigating Officer.
Apartfromotherinvestigation,healsoeffectedrecoveryofthe
clothesofSanjeevNandaathisinstance.
PW61Dr.PrashantKulshreshthaisSeniorResident,
ForensicMedicines,AIIMS,NewDelhi.On11.1.99heperformed
autopsyonbodyofdeceasedRajanKumar,PeeruLalandRam
RajontherequestofIOSadaBrikshPSLodhiColony.
Prosecution witness Sunil Kulkarni was given up by the

prosecution.However,hewassummonedbymeU/S311CrPC
and he was examined as a court witness on 17.5.2007,
29.5.2007,11.7.07and19.7.07.
STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 313 CRPC OF

ACCUSEDPERSONS
Aftercompletionofprosecutionevidence,statements
ofaccusedpersonsunderSection313CrPCwererecorded. All
the accused persons except accused Manik Kapur preferred to
leadevidenceintheirdefence.
DEFENCEWITNESSES
In his defence evidence accused Sanjeev Nanda

examinedthefollowingwitnessesinhissupport:
DW1MrsSumitraNand isgrandmotherofaccused
SanjeevNanda.Shetestifiedthat sheresides at HouseNo.B
104,DefenceColonywithherhusbandAdmiralNandaatB104
DefenceColony. HersonSureshNandausedtoliveabroadat
thattimebuthehadahouseat4,PrithvirajRoad,wherehis
daughterSonaliNandausedtolivealoneandwheneverSuresh
NandausedtocometoIndia,hewouldstayat4,PrithvirajRoad.
ShetestifiedthatSmtRenuNanda, thewifeofSureshNanda,
usedtoliveseparatelywithhersonieaccusedSanjeevNandaat
D108, Defence Colony. She testified that Renu Nanda and
Suresh Nanda used to live separately as their was separation
between them. Sanjeev Nanda was studying abroad but
whenever he came to India, he stayed with her mother. She
testifiedthatatabout7.30or8amon10.1.99RenuNanda
called her and her husband to their house as police had
visited her house. She testified that after she and her
husband reached D 108 Defence Colony, she found that
police was asking Sanjeev Nanda to accompany them.
Sanjeevresistedandpoliceofficialsgavetwothreeblowson
hisfaceduetowhichbloodoozedoutfromhislips.
DW2AmitKilambkar is cameramanIndia TV, 202
203349BusinessPoint,WesternExpressHighway,SecondFloor,
AndheriEast,Mumbai. HerecordedtheinterviewofoneGauri
Shanker Tiwari on Sony PD170. In this interview, Gauri
ShankerTiwaricalled SunilKulkarniaCheatandalsostated
that on the day of offence, Sunil Kulkarni was in Mumbai.
However,GaurishankerTiwariwasnotexaminedbydefence.
DW3SayedainZaidi isaChiefofBureau(Mumbai)
IndiaTV.HeinterviewedGauriShankerTiwariathisofficeorin
hisstudioinMumbai.
DW4Sh.V.N.Sehgal isaretired DirectorofCFSL,
CBIwithalotofexperience.Hetestifiedonvariousaspectsof
bloodtesting.Hetestifiedabouttheeffectofthealchoholupona
person.Healsogavehisopinionontherateofeliminationof
ethenolfromtheblood.
Accused Rajeev Gupta, Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath
examinedfollowingwitnessesintheirdefence:
DW5 Gaurav Karan is the friend of Sh. Sidharth
Gupta(thesonofaccusedRajeevGupta). Hedeposedthaton
the morning of 10th January 1999, his friend Sidharth Gupta
telephonedhimatabout7:308:00inthemorningthatthere
wasanaccidentandrequestedhimtoreachathishouse.He
testifiedthatwhenhereachedatthathouse, hefoundSudhir
Sareen,thefatherinlawofSidharthGuptaattheirhouseand
police took him to police station. He testified that Mr Rajeev
Guptawasnotthereatthatpointoftimeandhecametoknow
thatheissleeping.DW5wentuptotheroomofRajeevGupta
andknockedthedoor. RajeevGuptaandhiswifeopenedthe
dooratabout9amandthenhetoldthemabouttheaccident.In
cross examination, he admitted that he was son of an Ex
CommissionerofPolice.
DW6 Himalyani Gupta is the friend and lawyer of
accusedRajeevGupta. Shedeposedthaton10th January1999
RajeevGuptagaveheracallataround10:00amandwasasking
her if I could come to Lodhi Colony police station as he was
proceedingtowardsthepolicestation.Shetestifiedthatshewas
a lawyer and afamilyfriend ofRajeevGupta. Therefore, she
reachedatthepolicestationatabout10.45am.
DW7KaranSingh istheChokidarofaccusedRajeev
Gupta. He deposed that on the date of the incident he was
working as Chokidar at B16, Greater Kailash, the residence of

Rajeev Gupta in 1999, Rajeev Gupta alongwith his wife and
SidharthGuptahadshiftedto50,GolfLinksbutfullfamilyhad
notshifted asShrawan,theeldersonofRajeevGuptahadnot
shifted from Greater Kailash. On 10.1.99, at about 8 am, he
receivedatelephoniccallfromaservant ofRajeevGuptathat
the Chowkidar at 50, Golf Links had been taken away by the
police.Therefore,DW7reachedat50,GolfLinks.Hetestified
thathesawRajeevGuptaandhiswifeat1010.15amandatthat
timeRajeevGuptawasinsidehishouse. Healsotestifiedthat
therewasnoarrangementforwashingthecarsintheDriveWay.
DW8 Dr. Deepak Bawa is the family physician of
accused Rajeev Gupta. He testified that Rajeev Gupta suffers
fromDiabetesandhighBloodPressure.HetestifiedthatRajeev
Guptaplayscardseverydaytill latenightandwakesupfairly
late.Onhismedicaladvice,RajeevGuptaalsotakessleeping
pillsfivetosixtimesinamonth.
DW9SudhirSareen testifiedthathisdaughterParul
was engaged with Sidharth Gupta on 8.1.99 and there was a
Dinnerathisresidenceinthenightintervening9/1011999.In
thesaiddinner,SidharthGupta,RajeevGuptaandhiswifewere
alsopresent. HetestifiedthatSidharthGuptaandParulleftto
attendanEngagementCeremonyof theircommonfriend. The
dinner at their residence was over by 2.30 am on 10.1.99.
SidharthGuptaandParulreturnedat 4am. At7amSidharth
lefttheirhouse. Witnesstestifiedthathereceivedatelephonic
callfromSidharthGuptathatcarofSanjeevNandawasparked
hishouseandPCRVanwasalsoparkedoutsidehishouse.The
witnesstestifiedthat hereachedat50,GolfLinksinhiscarat
about8'O'clock.SHOLodhiColonyaskedhimtogetthegate
opened. ThiswitnesstookthepolicetotheDrawingRoomand
found Sidharth Gupta and Manik Kapur there. She made
inquiriesfromSidharthGuptaandManikKapurastowhosecar
itwas?WitnesstestifiedthatSHOarrestedhimfordestruction
ofevidencepresumingthathewasRajeevGuptaandtookhim,
Sidharth Gupta and Manik Kapur to police station Lodhi
Colony. Healso testified thattherewasnowashingofthe
car. From police station, he telephonically called his friends
includingMsHimiGupta,advocatewhoreachedthereinabout
45 minutes. Police then let this witness go and Himi Gupta
advocatetoldhimthatpoliceofficershadmistakenhimasRajeev
Gupta. He testified that when he reached 50, Golf Links,
RajeevGuptawassleepingupstairsinthe room. Thiswitness
alsotestifiedthattheRajeevGuptanormallywakesupat10am
everyday.
Accused Manik Kapur did not prefer to lead evidence in
defence.
ACOURTWITNESSNAMELYSUNILKULKARNI
Inthe presentcase,onewitnessSunilKulkarnihadbeen
dropped by the prosecution. He was summoned as a court
witnessbythiscourtlateron. Thedefenceisstronglyassailing
his credibility and at one stage the prosecution had almost
condemnedhim.Lddefencecounselhasdrawnmyattentionto
anOrdersheetdt. 10.10.07wherein Ihad writtenthatsome
evidencehascomeindepositionofwitnessSunilKulkarniand
prior to it there was no evidence against Sanjeev Nanda. Ld
defence counsels have argued that witness Sunil Kulkarni is
unreliablewitnessandexcepthisevidence,thiscourtitselfhad
admitted that there was no evidence against accused Sanjeev
Nanda.Imakeitclearthatitwasonlyaprimafacieopinionand
thesaidordersheetshouldbereadthat earliertherewasno
directevidenceagainstaccusedSanjeevNanda.
Since the witness Sunil Kulkarni has been put to

vehementattackbythedefence,letmeappreciatethetotalityof
theevidencebyexcludingthetestimonyofSunilKulkarniandto
seeastowhethertheprosecutionisabletoproveitscasebeyond
reasonabledoubtifweexcludethetestimonyofSunilKulkarni.
Itakeeachissueonebyone.
WHETHERTHEOFFENDINGVEHICLEWASATRUCK
ORBMWCARBEARINGNUMBERM312LYP?
Althoughduringtheentiretrialtheaccusedappeared to
bedenyingthataccidenttookplacewiththeBMWcarnumber
M312LYP.However,atthestageoffinalarguments,Lddefence
counsels fairly admitted that in views of overwhelming
evidence,theywouldnotbe abletodenythatblackcoloured
BMWCarM312LYPwasinvolvedinthisoffence.Therefore,I
amnotinclinedtodiscussthisevidenceindetail. Asperthe
testimony of SI Kailash Chand, there were broken pieces of
numberplate of a vehicle which were assembled anditwas
foundtobeanumberplatehavingregistrationNo.M312LYP.
Onerearviewglasswasfoundlyingatthespot.Onetrailofoil
startingfromthepointofoffencetill50GolfLinkswasfoundby
Inspector JagdishPandeyandpolicereached50GolfLinksby
followingthistrail. MechanicalInspection EXPW14/B ofthis
BMWcarshowsthatthe oilreserve ofthevehiclewasempty.
Rear view mirror and the front number plate of the car was
missing. Bonnetandthefrontwindscreenofthecarwasalso
damaged.Therefore,itstandsprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt
thattheoffendingvehiclewasthisBMWcarandnotthetruck
astestifiedbyPW2ManojMalik.
WHOWASDRIVINGTHEBMWCAR?
Lddefencecounselsarguethatthereis noevidenceon
record toshowthatthiscarwas drivenby accusedSanjeev
Nanda.ItisarguedthatevenSunilKulkarnidoesnotstatethat
accusedSanjeevNandawasdrivingthiscar.
IhavealreadystatedthatthetestimonyofSunilKulkarni
wouldbediscussedlateronbecause presently,Iamdiscussing
astowhethertheentireevidenceonrecord sansthetestimony
ofSunilKulkarniprovestheprosecutioncaseornot.Itisnotin
disputethatthisBMWcarbelongstoSonaliNandawhoisreal
sisterofaccusedSanjeevNanda.ItisnotindisputethatSonali
NandaandherfatherSureshNandaonlyresideintheirhouse
at 4, Prithviraj Road, whereas accused Sanjeev Nanda resides
withhermotherinanotherhouseieD108,DefenceColony.As
perthetestimonyofDW1SumitraNandawhoisgrandmother
ofaccusedSanjeevNanda,hisfatherSureshNandawasabroad.
Evenasperprosecutioncase,SureshNandareturnedtoIndiaon
11.1.99. Therefore,therewerenootherfamilymembersinthe
house ofSonaliNandaexcept herselfinthenightintervening
9.1.99 and 10.1.99. A Notice was issued by Investigating
Officer to state as to who was driving the vehicle on the said
date. Itispertinenttonotethatshedidnot answertothis
notice. SonaliNandalivesinIndiaitself andshecouldhave
beenexaminedby accusedSanjeevNandato provethateither
thisvehiclewasbeingdrivenbyherselforbysomeotherperson
which was in her exclusive knowledge. Non examination of
SonaliNandawhocouldhaveprovedastowhowasdrivingthe
vehicleonthesaiddateisaverystrong circumstanceagainst
accusedSanjeevNanda.ItispertinenttonotethatBMWcaris
veryexpensivevehicle. Thereisnoallegationthat thisvehicle

hadbeenstolenonthenightof9.1.1999.Itisverystrangethat
eventhechowkidar/securityguardwhoproducedtheregisterdid
notstateastowhohaddrivenawaythesaidcar.Imaypointout
thatperusaloftheentirefilewouldshowthatprosecutiondid
not examine a few material witnesses for example the
particular security guard who made entry that one Baba had
taken away this car. Was it deliberate? Accused has not
producedanydefence evidenceastowhichpersonamonghis
family is called as Baba. I am of the opinion that all the
circumstancesclearlypointouttowardsonlyonedirection.The
prosecutionallegesthatduetoimpactoftheaccident,onelipof
accusedSanjeevNandagotsomeinjuryandbloodofitfellonthe
steeringofBMWCar. ThisbloodwasfoundtobeofBgroup.
AccusedSanjeevNandaisalsoofBpositivegroup. Hisblood
from lip was also found of his jersey recovered by the police.
Even as per the defence version, this injury was recent. The
presenceof freshinjuryonthelipof accusedSanjeevNanda,
findingofbloodonthesteeringofBgroupandfindingofblood
onthejerseyofaccusedSanjeevNandaleavesme innodoubt
thatthisisaccusedSanjeevNandahimselfwhowasdrivingthe
offendingvehicleatthetimeoftheoffenceandhereceivedthe
injuryduetotheimpactofthecarhittingthepersonsstanding
ontheroad.Lddefencecounselshavevehementlyarguedthat
BgroupdoesnotmeananythinganditcouldbeBnegativealso.
Thepossibilitycannotberuledout thatRHfactoroftheblood
liftedfromthesteeringcould benegativewhereasthebloodof
accusedSanjeevNandais BPositive. Though,thereissome
substance intheargumentsofLddefencecounselsbutitmust
notbeforgottenthatthecourthastoseethecumulativeeffects
ofallthecircumstances. Inthepresentcaseitcannotbe said
thatthebloodliftedfromthespotdoesnotbelongto accused
Sanjeev Nanda Presence of injury on his lip and presence of

blood on her jersey recovered at his instance soon after the
offenceleadstoirresistible conclusionthatthisinjuryhasbeen
receivedwhileaccusedSanjeevNandawasdrivingtheoffending
caratthetimeoftheoffence.Lddefencecounselshaveargued
thataccusedhasgivenasuggestionthatSIUlhasGirihadhithim
onhislip.Lddefencecounselshavealsodrawnmyattentionto
thetestimonyof DW1 SumitaNanda thatthepoliceofficials
hadgiventwoorthreeblowsonthemouthofaccusedSanjeev
Nanda, due to which blood oozed out from his lips. I have
perusedthesuggestionsandthetestimonyofDW1.Iamofthe
opinionthatexplanationoftheaccusedandtestimonyofDW1
onthispointisunworthyofcredence.AsperthetestimonyofSI
UlhasGiri,AdmiralS.M.NandawasverymuchpresentatD108,
DefenceColonywhenhereachedthere. Itisaknownfactthat
AdmiralS.M.NandahadbeenatopNavalOfficer. Asperthe
testimony of DW1, Admiral S. M. Nanda followed the police
when the police took Sanjeev Nanda etc. In such a situation
AdmiralS.M.Nandawouldhavenaturallyraisedanobjection
aboutthebehaviourpolice.Thereisnoevidenceonrecordnorit
isthecaseofaccusedSanjeevNandathathisgrandfatherraised
anyobjectiontotheassaultbythepoliceofficersnoritisthecase
of defence that Admiral S. M. Nanda had filed any complaint
againstthepoliceofficialstotheirsuperiorofficers. Itmustbe
keptinmindthatAdmiralS.M.Nandaisnotanordinarycitizen.
Heisahighlyrespectedpersonswhohadservedthenationinhis
owntimes. Hecouldnothavetoleratedinfractionoflawbya
smallofficeroflawenforcingagency. Ihavecarefullyperused
theMLCofSanjeevNanda. HerealsoSanjeevNandahadnot
stated anywhere to the doctor that police had assaulted him.
Hadhedoneso,thedoctorwouldhaverecordedit.Otherwise
also,Idonotfindanyreasonastowhythepoliceofficialwould
beatupaccusedSanjeevNanda.
Inthepresentcase,thevideographyofthevehiclewasdone
starting from the place of offence up to 50, Golf Links. Ld.
defence counsels argue that in the video, the finger print
Proficientisshownrubbingthepowderonthesteeringof the
carwiththehelpofabrushandnobloodstainisvisibleonit.
Itisarguedthatduetothisreasontheprosecutioncasebecomes
highlydoubtful..LdSpecialPublicProsecutorontheotherhand
submitsthatthequantityofbloodonthesteeringwasverysmall.
Further,thepowderwasrubbedonthesteeringverygentlytolift
fingerprints.Thispowderwillnotchangethecharacterofthe
blood. ItisarguedbyLd.Prosecutorthatafterfivehours,this
smallquantityofbloodmighthavedriedupandthereforethere
isnochancethatbyrubbingwithbrushthebloodmighthave
beenrubbedoff.
Ihavecarefullygonethroughthevideographedreelwhich
hasbeenconvertedintoCDbythecourtorder.EventheFinger
Print Expert is seen putting the powder on the steering in
extremelygentlemannerwiththehelpofabrushtopickupthe
fingerprints. Thebacksideofthesteeringisnotvisibleinthis
videography/CD.Therefore,itcannotbesaidthateachandevery
portionofthesteeringisvisible.Furthermoreevenonthefront
sideofthesteeringtheinnerportionsofit,thereisnotsufficient
lightandthereforeitisnotpossibletosaythatbloodmightnot
bepresentthere. Nosuggestionhasbeenputtohimregarding
thepresenceofthebloodonthesteering.Insuchcircumstances
thiscourthasnoreasontodisbelieveD.SChakotra(PW31)that
hehadpickedupbloodstainfromthesteeringofthevehicle.
Itispertinenttonotethat policecametoknowaboutthe
nameandaddressofaccusedSanjeevNandafromaccusedRajeev
Gupta.Whenpolicereachedat50GolfLinksandinquiredfrom
accused Rajeev Gupta. He told that the vehicle belongs to
accused Sanjeev Nanda and his son had taken him to his
residence from here. It is pertinent to note that on this clue
receivedfromRajeevGupta,policereachedthehouseofaccused
SanjeevNanda. TheBMWcarwasnotregisteredinIndiaand
therewasnomannerinwhichthepolicecouldhaveknownthat
itwasbeingdrivenbyaccusedSanjeevNandanotpolicecould
haveknowntheaddresswhereSanjeevNandawouldbefound.
Though the statement of Rajeev Gupta stating the name and
address of Sanjeev Nanda might not be admissible but the
questionishowpolicecametoknowhisnameandaddress.The
prosecutioncasethatpolicecametoknowaboutitfromRajeev
Gupta himself cannot be doubted and to my mind the police
investigation in this regard is not only correct but is also
believable.Theassuranceofcorrectnessofinvestigationasto
how the police reached upto accused Sanjeev Nanda is
anothercircumstancewhichconnectsaccusedSanjeevNanda
asthedriveroftheoffendingvehicle.
ItisarguedbyLddefencecounselsthatthisstatementof
RajeevGuptaisnotadmissibleinevidencebecausehewasonly
awitnessandthereforethisstatementishitbySection162CrPC
andsincehewasnotinpolicecustody,hisstatementcannotbe
treated as a disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act. I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence
Counsels.Evenifanaccusedisnotformallytakenincustody,he
stillwouldbeincustodyofthepolice,ifhehasbeendetainedby
the police. In the present case the police had already seen
accusedRajeevGuptacommittingtheoffenceofdisappearanceof
evidence. Therefore as soon as gate was opened and Rajeev

Guptawasquestioned,RajeevGuptawouldbedeemedtobein
the custody of the police. I refer to AIR1940 Lah 129, AIR
1948All7(9)whereinitwasheldthatthewordcustody
does not only mean custody after formal arrest but also
includessuchstateofaffairsinwhichaccusedcanbesaidto
havecomeintothehandsofpoliceofficerorcanbesaidto
havebeenundersomesortofsurveillanceorrestriction.
Nowthequestioniswhetherdisclosureofnameofaccused
SanjeevNandabyaccusedRajeevGuptaisadiscoveryofafactor
not. Bynowitiswellsettledthatsimplediscoveryofnameof
accused and his address would not be sufficient to draw a
particular situation within the ambit of Section 27 of Indian
EvidenceAct. Butifoneaccuseddisclosesthenameofanother
accused and such another accused gets some material object
recovered,inthatcircumstancethedisclosurebythefirstaccused
wouldnotonlyberelevantunderSection27ofIndianEvidence
Actbutalsoshallformapieceofprovedcircumstance.Ireferto
1969(2) Supreme Court Cases 872 in support of my above
opinion. Inthepresentcasealsonameandaddressofaccused
SanjeevNandawasdisclosedbyaccusedRajeevGupta.Afterthe
arrestofaccusedSanjeevNanda,hegotrecoveredhisjeansand
jersey from his own house. Therefore to my mind all the
ingredientsofSection27ofIndianEvidenceActstandproved.
I have also mentioned earlier this court is examining

whetherthepoliceinvestigationinreachinguptoSanjeevNanda
iscorrectornot. Itisthepoliceneverknewastowhomthis
vehiclebelonged.ThefirstcluecamefromaccusedRajeevGupta
andgettinginformationfromhim.TheycaughtaccusedSanjeev
Nanda from his house. There is no reason to disbelieve that
name of accused Sanjeev Nanda and his address should have

come to the knowledge of police from some other source.
Therefore, the police investigation in reaching up to accused
Sanjeev Nanda is not only correct but this has corroborative
valuetotheprosecutioncase thatthevehicle wasdrivenby
noneotherpersonthanaccusedSanjeevNanda. I make it
clearthatentireevidenceinthiscasehastobeappreciatedinthe
backdrop of the circumstances that accused persons have
indulged inwinningover the witnesses to such anextentthat
eventhevictimofthisoffenceistestifyingthatoffendingvehicle
was a truck. I am reminded of theword wisdomofour own
supremeCourtinAIR1973SupremeCourt2407whereinitwas
observedinpara23ofthejudgementasunder:
Acriminaltrialisnotlike
afairytalewhereinoneisfree
to give flight to one's
imagination and phantasy. It
concernsitselfwiththequestion
as to whether the accused
arraignedatthetrialisguiltyof
the crime with which he is
charged. Crime is an event in
real life and is the product of
interplay of different human
emotions. In arriving at the
conclusion about the guilt of
the accused charged with the
commission of a crime, the
court has to judge the
evidence by the yardstick of
probabilities, its intrinsic
worth and animus of
witnesses. Every case in the

final analysis would have to
depend upon its own facts.
Although the benefit of every
reasonable doubt should be
giventotheaccused,thecourts
should not at the same time
rejectevidencewhichisexfacie
trustworthy on grounds which
are fanciful or in the nature of
conjectures.
SummingupallthecircumstancesmentionedaboveasI
amleftinnodoubtthatitwasaccusedSanjeevNandawho
himselfwasdrivingthevehicleatthetimeoftheoffence.
WHATOFFENCEISDISCLOSED?
The main stress of the final arguments had been as to

whetherthis offenceisanoffenceU/S304Aor304 IPC. Sh
Prem Kumar, advocate addressed the arguments in a very
scholarlymannerandsubmittedthattheaccidentsofevengraver
naturehavebeenopinedtobecoveredU/S304AIPCandnot
U/S304 IPCbySupremeCourtofIndia. Lddefencecounsels
havecitednumerousauthoritiesintheirfavour,whichIdiscuss
laterononebyone.
On the other hand, Ld APP has drawn my attention to

recentjudgementsdated6.9.2007inTheStateofMaharashtra
VsAlisterAnthonyPareiraCriminalAppealNo.430of2007,
Criminal AppealNo.566 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.
475 of 2007 case where the Bombay High Court convicted a
drunkdriverofacarU/S304IPCwhichcrushedsevenpersons
onthefootpathinthenight.
IhavealreadystatedthatpresentlyIamconsideringthis
evidenceexcludingthetestimonyofSunilKulkarni.
Ihaveperused Pareira's caseofBombayHighCourtandI

amoftheopinionthatitisatreatiseonthequestionastowhat
constitutesknowledge.Infact,eachandeverysentenceofthat
JudgmentrequirestobequotedherebutIrefrainfromitforthe
sakeofbrevity.
Firstofall,letmequoteSection304AIPC.
304A.CausingdeathbynegligenceWhoevercausesthe
death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with
imprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmayextend
totwoyears,orwithfine,orwithboth.
ThebareperusalofthisSectionwouldshowthatfirstofall,
thecourtshoulddetermine astowhether offenceisculpable
homicide.If answerisyes,Section304Awouldhavetobe
expelled.Ifanswerisno,thenthecourtshouldseewhetherthe
offenceiscoveredu/s304AIPCorwasitapureaccident.
IfitispurelyanaccidentcoveredunderSection80IPC,the
court would haveno optionbutto acquit the doer ofthe act,
howsoevergravetheconsequencesmaybe.Section80IPCdeals
withaccidentsormisfortuneandexemptssuchactsfrompenal
liability, ifdone bylawful means and with proper care and
caution.Thefactsofthecasewouldclearlyshowthattherewas
nopropercareandcautionobservedbytheaccusedwhiledriving
thesaidvehicleandthereforeSection80IPCwouldcometohis
rescue.
Therehadbeenamisconceptionthatcausingofdeathbya
motor vehicle would simply draw the criminal liability under
Section304AIPC.
In (1976) 1 SCC 889, the Supreme Court of India has

indicatedthatsuchoffencesmayfallunderSection304A,Section
299 as well as Section 300 of IPC. The observations of the
SupremeCourtareofgreatimportancetothepresentcasealso.I
reproduce the relevant paragraph no.4 of this judgement as
under:
Section304Acarvesouta
specificoffencewheredeathis
caused by doing a rash or
negligentactandthatactdoes
not amount to culpable
homicide under Section 299
IPC of murder under Section
300 IPC. Ifaperson wilfully
drivesamotorvehicleintothe
midstofacrowdandthereby
causesdeathtosomepersons,
it will not be a case of mere
rashandnegligentdrivingand
the act will amount to
culpablehomicide. Eachcase
will, therefore, depend upon
theparticularfactsestablished
againsttheaccused.
Ld. Defence Counselhas pointed outthe word wilfully

and submits that it means intentional. I disagree with the
submissionsofLd.DefenceCounsel.Thewordwilfullyusedin
the above said judgement does not have any legal equivalent.
Therefore its meaning can range from wishful to
intentional. THE NEW SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARYmaybereferredinthisregard.Ifavehicleisbeing
drivenintentionallytokillsomeone,theactwouldamountto
murderevenifthereisnopersonattheplaceofoffenceexcept
the victim. Therefore the word wilfully must mean
wishfully which would be a equivalent term for
recklessness.Thereforetheinferenceoftheabovequotedpart
of judgement is that if a person with a great degree of
recklessnessdrivesamotorvehicleintothemidstofacrowd,the
offencewouldfalleitherunderthirdpartofSection299IPCor
underSection300(4)IPC.
ImaypointoutthattheillustrationgivenbytheSupreme
Court in the above stated judgement is equivalent to an
illustration(d)toSection300ofIPC,whichreproduceasunder:
Awithoutanyexcusefires
aloadedcannonintoacrowdof
personsandkillsoneofthem.A
isguiltyofmurder,althoughhe
maynothavehadapremeditated
design to kill any particular
individual.
It must be kept in mind that Section 300 of IPC defines

murder in four ways and there are four corresponding
illustrations answering each situation. The illustration (d)
quoted above answers the fourth situation in which culpable
homicide would amount to murder. This fourth situation is

reproducedasunder:
4thly.If the person
committingtheactknowsthatit
is so imminently dangerous
thatitmust, inallprobability,
cause death or such bodily
injuryasislikelytocausedeath,
and commits such act without
anyexcuseforincurringtherisk
ofcausingdeathorsuchinjuryas
aforesaid.
A perusal of the above stated portion of the judgement

would make it clear that if a situation so warrants, a reckless
driving may be covered under Section 300(4) IPC (which has
beenquotedabovebyme)oritmayalsofallunderthirdpartof
Section299IPCwhichmakesanactcausingdeathofahuman
beingpunishableiftheoffenderactswiththeknowledgethat
hewaslikelybysuchacttocausedeath.
Therefore,innutshellthelegalpropositioncanbesummed
uplikethis.Thedutyofthecourtistofirstruleoutaculpable
homicide after considering the quality of knowledge attributed
underSection300(4)orinthirdpartofSection299IPCandif
thefactsandcircumstancesdonotfallinanyofthoseprovisions,
thenthecourtwouldconsiderthequestionastowhetheroffence
U/S304AIPCisdisclosedornot.
NowletmediscussastowhatistheschemeoftheIndian
PenalCodeandwhataregraveroffenceswherethequestionof
knowledgeisinvolved.WhilereferringtheschemeofthecourtI
am drawing heavily from an article with the title

RECKLESSNESSUNDERTHEINDIANPENALCODEbyStanley
MengHeongYeoanAustralianauthor.Thearticleispublished
inVolume30ofJournaloftheIndianLawInstitute.(maybe
citedas293JournaloftheIndianLawInstitute[Vol.30:3].It
ismadeclearthatIwouldnotbereferringthearticleverbatim
butIamplacingthecopyofthesameonjudicialrecord.
The first question to be determined is what kind of

recklessness is punishable. It is, by now, a well settled legal
proposition that a simple reckless act or a simple rash or
negligentactwouldnotconstituteacriminaloffence,thoughit
mayinvitecivilliability.
Inordertomakearecklessactpunishable,itmustbegross
innature.Assoonasagrossrecklessacthasresultedindeath,
the further inquiry would be as to whether any kind of
knowledgecanbeimputedtothedoer.Thenextinquiryshould
beastowhatistheschemeoftheIndianPenalCodeinthecases
involving human deaths by a gross reckless act done with a
particularknowledge. Imosthumblyemphasizethatinallthe
case law/authorities submitted by the prosecution and the
defence,thisissuehasnotbeendiscussed. Therefore,drawing
theessencefromtheabovementionedarticle,Iventuretodiscuss
theschemeofIndianPenalCodeasunder:
KNOWLEDGEOFFIRSTDEGREE
This is defined U/S 300 (4) IPC and the knowledge

requiredunderthisSectionisthatactwasimminentlydangerous
thatdeathwouldbecausedinallprobabilities.
SuchactwouldbepunishableU/S302IPC.Suchtypeof
offencesareofhighestdegreeofgrossrecklessness.
KNOWLEDGEOFSECONDDEGREE
Wheredeath iscaused byanactwhich the offender

knows is likely to cause death. This knowledge has been
mentioned in 3rd part of Section 299 IPC and the offence is
punishableU/S304IIIPC.Suchtypeofoffencesmaybetermed
asthecasesofsubstantialgrossrecklessness.
KNOWLEDGEOFTHIRDDEGREE
Where the act has dangerous consequences like causing

death, but the offender hopes that the same would not occur.
ThisoffenceiscoveredU/S304AIPC.Suchtypeofoffencesare
thecasesoflowestdegreeofgrossrecklessnessandmaybecalled
rashacts.
Thesedegreesrefertothedegreesofgravityofrecklessness
onthepartoftheoffenderandvariousdegreesofknowledgeof
theconsequencesimputedtotheoffender.
I would appreciate as to what type of knowledge the

accused Sanjeev Nanda possessed at the time of the offence.
BeforediscussingitIwoulddiscusstwomorepoints.First,what
thesceneofcrimespeaksandwhatistheimplicationofdrivinga
vehiclewhenthedriverisexcessivelydrunk.WhereeverIrefer
theworddrunk,itmeansthatthedriverhas,inhisblood
alcoholexceeding30mg.Per100ml.ofbloodwhichisone
ingredientofSection185ofMotorVehicleAct.
SCENEOFCRIME
As translated in English, the scene of crime has been

narratedbySIKailashChandintherukkaasunder:
AfterthereceipttheDD,I
alongwithCt.JaganLalreached
the spot i.e. Car Care Center,
PetrolPump,LodhiRoad,where
three persons namely Ct. Ram
Raj DHG, Ct. Rajan Kumar
(CRPF)andunknownageabout
35 years were found and four
persons were reported to be
shiftedtohospitalbyPCRVan.
AbrokenNo.ofplatewasfound
lying. After assembling broken
pieces the particulars were
revealedasM312LYPandPark
LaneandBMW.Atthespotthe
black colour piece of bumper
andrearwindscreenandblack
colour broken piece of the car
were found scattered in the
radius of 100/125 ft. Skid
marks ofa vehicle were seen
on the road. The head of
unknown body was bound
crushed, brain matter was
foundoutsidetheskull. The
bodyofCt.RamRajwasfound
crushedduetopassingofthe
vehicle, his right leg was

founddetachedandwaslying
at distance of 10' 15'. The
abdomenofRajanKumarwas
found burst and the blood is
spread on the road for
considerabledistance....... On
the spot pieces of flesh was
found scattered in a large
area. These facts were
indicating that death of these
three persons occurred due to
forcefulimpactofvehicleno.M
312, LYP, there were skid
marksupto30'40'........
InvestigationOfficerSIKailashChandpreparedaroughsite
planEx.PW58/B.AsperobservationoftheIOatpointAofsite
planwastheplacewherefirstimpactoccurred.Bloodislyingat
pointA.AtpointBwhichisat38stepsawayfrompointA,blood
islyingandtherearebloodstainsandskidmarks.AtpointCon
themiddledividertherearefrictionmarksofthetyre.PointCis
eightstepsawayfrompointB.AtpointDonedeadbodyislying
havingitsrightlegamputated.Therearebloodandfriction/drag
marksfrompointCtoD.AtpointEonedeadbodyislyingnear
electricpoleno.12andbloodaswellasdragmarksareseen.At
pointFanotherdeadbodyislyingandpointpointFis26steps
awayfromthepointE.FromthepointEtoFthedragmarksand
bloodarevisible.AtpointGwhichfivestepsawayfrompointF,
oneamputatedlegislyinginfrontofelectricpoleno.13.Pieces
of bumper and broken pieces of glass were lying scattered.
Bumperwasblackcolour.
OneoiltrailwasalsoobservedbytheInvestigatingOfficer
goingtowardsMadarsaSafdarjang. InthissiteplanpointBis
seenatelectricpoleno.11.
Thedescriptionofsceneofcrimeasobservedintherukkais
corroborated by the site plan prepared by the Investigating
Officerandthevideographydonebythepoliceofthesceneof
crime.SincethesiteplanismadebyInvestigatingOfficeronhis
ownobservations,thesameisadmissibleinevidence.Thepoints
wherebloodanddeadbodiesarelying,skidmarksandtheoil
trailproveitclearlythattheoffendingvehiclewascomingfrom
thesideofNizamuddinandaftertheoffencewenttowardsside
ofMadarsaSafdarjang. Thissceneofcrimemakesitclearthat
theoffendingvehiclefirsthitthepersonsstandingontheleftside
(i.e.atpointA)oftheroadnearfootpathwheresomebloodis
seenlying. Thereafterthevehicletookarightturnandhitthe
centralverge. Thevideographysceneofcrime(nowconverted
into a CD) would show that there are three parallel dragged
marksofbloodontheroaduptotoacertaindistance.Asperthe
rukkaandthesiteplan,thereafteronebodyislyingandsecond
bodyislyingafterthatandthirdbodyislyingatadistance.This
leads to only one conclusion that these persons had been
entangledwiththecarandthereaftertheyweredraggedbythe
offending vehicle and they fell one by one and were also got
crushed and amputated. I have already discussed that the
offending vehicle was BMW Car driven by accused Sanjeev
Nanda.
Sincethepartofdeadbodieswerestrewnoveralargearea,
itcanbeunderstoodthatthecarwasbeingdrivenanextremely
highspeedwhenithittheunfortunatepersons. Theroadisa
welllitareaasisclearfromthesiteplanwhereelectricpoles
no.11,12and13areshown.Infactpoleno.11isataveryshort
distance from point A where the vehicle struck first and it is
almostatthatverypointwhereInvestigatingOfficerhasshowna
point B. Even PW1 Hari Shanker has admitted that there are
electricpolesonthemiddlepavementoftheroadandtherewas
sufficientlight.Itisnoone'scasethattheseelectricpoleswere
not illuminated. As per PW15 S. C. Gupta, the Director and
Incharge Meterorologial Office, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi,
there was visibility of 1000 meters on 10.1.99 at 5:30 am.
Thereforeitisclearthatnomistandtherewaslotofvisibilityat
thespotatthetimeofoffence.Thereforeitcannotbesaidthat
atthetimeofoffencethataccusedcouldnothaveseenthefew
personsstandingontheroad. Thosepersonsafterbeinghitby
theBMWcarweregotentangledinitandstillaccusedkepton
drivingthevehicleforquitealongdistance.Theaccusedhasnot
shownanycircumstancethathecouldnotseethatfewofthe
personshadcomeunderhiscar. ThereforeIamoftheopinion
thatthesceneofcrimeitselfprovesbeyonddoubtthataccused
hadseenthattheBMWcarbeingdrivenbyhimhaddraggedthe
threepersonsforalongdistanceandthereisnothingonrecord
toshowthataccusedwasdisabledduetoanyreasonsuchaslack
ofelectricitytoknowthatafewpersonsareentangledunderthe
bonnetofhiscar.
TESTIMONYOFMANOJMALIK(PW2)
Hehastestifiedthatoffendingvehiclewasatruck.Sucha
testimonybyavictimoftheoffencehimselfwouldleadtoonly
one conclusion that he has been won over by the defence.
Reachinguptothefinalarguments,evendefencehadadmitted
that the offence was committed by the BMW car in question.
Despite his being won over, he has supported the prosecution

caseonafewpoints.Iclarifythatwhileperusinghistestimony,I
wouldusethewordoffendingvehicleinsteadoftruck. This
witnesstestifiesthaton10.1.99atabout4:30amhewasgoing
to railway station along with his friend Gulab to see him off.
When they were proceedings on foot and reached near petrol
pump, Lodhi Road the three police officials stopped them to
check their belongings. When these police officials started
checkingthebelongingsnearthepatri,avehiclecameatavery
fastspeedfromNizamuddinsideandhitthem.Hetestifiedthat
histwocompanionsandthreepolicemencameunderneath
thevehicle.Hetestifiedonemorefactinhiscrossexamination
by Sh. R. K. Anand Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Sanjeev
Nanda that this offending vehicle had stopped at a little
distance.Thisisaveryimportantfactwhichwouldcorroborate
thetestimonyofcourtwitnessSunilKulkarni(tobeconsideredin
the later part of this judgement). Suffice it to say that some
glimpses of truth have come out even from the mouth of this
hostilewitnessandhistestimonyfullycorroboratetheinference
whichisdrawnfromtheobservationsofthesceneofcrimebythe
Investigating Officer. His testimony has proved that a few
personscameunderneaththeoffendingvehicle. Sceneofcrime
clearlyshowsdragmarksandbodiesfallenatvariouspointsone
after another. Therefore the testimony of PW2 Manoj Malik
coupledwiththesceneofcrimeprovebeyondreasonabledoubt
thattheoffendingvehiclecamefromthesideofNizamuddin,hit
a few persons on the left side Patri, who came under the
offendingvehicleandthereaftertookaturnandhitthemiddle
divider. FromthisplacewhichisshownatpointBinthesite
plan,theoffendingvehiclestarteddraggingthepersonswhohad
comeunderit. Thesethreedeadbodiesfellonebyoneaftera
certaindistances.
Insuchascenarioandinviewoftheabovediscussions,
itisclearthatitisacaseofcausingdeathofhumanbeings
byanactofgrossrecklessnessonthepartofaccusedSanjeev
Nanda.
HOW DO WE MEASURE THE DEGREE OF GROSS

RECKLESSNESSWITHASPECIFICKNOWLEDGE
Ld.DefenceCounselshavereferredalonglistofjudgements
andthoughitwillentaillengthydiscussion,howeverinviewof
thenatureofoffencealltheseauthoritieshavetobeconsidered.
In AIR 2005 SC 3180 where the Supreme Court was

dealingwithacaseofmedicalnegligence.Thefactsinourcase
are not a case of negligence rather the same is case of
recklessness.Thereisagreatdealofdifferencebetweenthetwo
legal terms and therefore this case is not similar to the above
statedjudgementofSupremeCourt.OtherwisealsotheSupreme
Court in the said judgement specifically noted in para 35 that
The criminal law has invariably placed the medical
professionalsonapedestaldifferentfromordinarymortals.
TheIndianPenalCodeenactedasfarbackasin.Moreover,
the death in the said case did not occur due to any direct
negligenceofthemedicalmanratheritwasduetothefactthat
anoxygencylinderwhichwasimmediatelyrequiredtosavethe
child was found to be empty. Therefore the Supreme Court
quashedthecriminalproceedingsagainstthedoctor.
Tomymind,theresultofthisparticularcasewouldhave
been totally different if an unqualified doctor in highly
intoxicatedstatehadperformedanoperationonapatient. In
suchasituationaknowledgeasspecifiedunderSection300(4)
IPC orthird part ofSection 299 IPC could bevalidly imputed
uponhimconsideringtheattendingcircumstances.
In (2000)7SupremeCourtCases72 onepassengerwas
boardingthebus. Whenthebusmovedforward,thepassenger
felloutofthevehicleandwasrunoverbytherearwheelofthe
bus.TheSupremeCourtacquittedthedriverofthebusasonthe
factsitselfitisclearlyanaccident. Thesefactsaretotallynot
applicabletothiscase.
Incase(2007)3SupremeCourtCases474theSupreme
Courtwasdealingwiththecasewhereadriveroflorrydrovethe
vehicleinaextremelyhighspeedanddashedagainstatreeand
causeddeathofthreepersonswhowerethepassengersofthe
saidlorry. Inthiscasetheprosecutionhaspressedthecharges
underSection304AIPConlyandtheSupremeCourtupheldthe
conviction under Section 304A IPC. Therefore the Supreme
Courtwasnotdealingwithaquestionastowhetheritamounted
tooffenceunderSection304IPCor304AIPC.
Otherwisealsothedriverofthelorrywasnotdrunkandno
additionalfactorcircumstancewasonrecordtopresumethatthe
driverdidthisactwithacertainknowledge.Theonlyevidence
againstthedriverwasthathewasdrivingthevehicleatahigh
speed.
In (1976) 1SCC889, theaccusedusedtodriveatruck

earlierwiththepermissionofthetruckowner. Onthedateof
incident,thetruckhadsomeotherdriver.Whenthedriverwas
away,theaccuseddroveawaythetruckwithfullspeedstraight
onacotuponwhichthedeceasedwasresting.Duetothisreason
thedeceasedwasthrownawayabout10feetandwasgotkilled.
The accused wascharged underSection 302 IPC. HighCourt
converted the conviction into Section 304 (II) IPC, however
SupremeCourtheldthatitwassimplyacaseunderSection304A
IPC. TherelevantfactswhichwereconsideredbytheSupreme
Court were that the truck while being driven was trying to
turntowardstheKutcharoadnearthecotandaccusedwas
unabletocontrolthevehicleinhighspeedwhiletakingthe
turn. The Supreme Court also considered that there was no
directimpactofpersonswiththetruck. Thisfactruledoutthe
intention.Inthiscasealsothedriverwasnotdrunk.
InAIR2007SC2376,theSupremeCourtwasdealingwith
acasewhereaboyaged10yearswasrunoverbyabusdriverin
themiddleoftheroad.Theinvestigationbythepolicerevealed
thattherewasevidencetotheeffectthateventhepassengersin
thebuswerealarmedoftheenormous,speedinwhich itwas
beingdrivenandhadcautionedthedrivertostopevencrying,as
theyhadseentheschoolchildrencrossingtheroadinaqueue.
The investigation also revealed that even the children crossing
the road had raised both hands forstopping the vehicle. The
passengers and pedestrians were of the view that the bus was
beingdrivenatahighspeedandthattheyhadcriedaloudto
stopthebus. Itwas,inspiteofallthese,thatthebusranover
thesaidstudentonhisheadandthebuscouldbestoppedonly
15to20feetaheadofthespotofoccurrence.Inthelightofthe
said evidence, the investigating officer felt that there was real
intentiononthepartoftheappellant/driverofthebustocause
death of persons to whom harm may be caused by reason of
hitting the bus and he was charged with offence punishable
underSection302IPC.Thecourtbelowfoundthatnointention
hadbeenprovedinthecase.But,atthesametime,theaccused
actedwiththeknowledgethatitwaslikelytocausedeath. So,
theactcommittedbytheappellantwasculpablehomicidenot
amountingtomurderpunishableunderSection304PartIIIPC.
Convictinghimforthesaidoffence,hewassentencedtoundergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years etc. The High Court of
Keralaupheldtheconviction.TheSupremeCourthoweverheld
that it was only a case under Section 304A IPC. Though the
SupremeCourthasnotgivenanyreasonastowhyitwasnotan
offence under Section 304 (Part 2) IPC, but one thing is very
clearfromthefactsthatthedriverwasnotdrunk.
In(2000)1SupremeCourtCases662,atruckdriverwas
convicted under Section 302 IPC for intentionally dashing
againstascooteristandtherebykillinghim. Theconviction
was upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan. However the
SupremeCourtheldthatprosecutionwasunabletoprovethat
thetruckdriverhadintentionallydashedagainstthescooterist.
Oncetheingredientofintentionhadgone,therewasnothing
on record to show that the offence fell in any other category
exceptSection304AIPC.Thereforethefactsofthecasebefore
SupremeCourtarenotsimilartothecaseinhand.Imaypoint
outthatevenherethedriverwasnotdrunk.
InKuldeepSinghvs.StateofHimachalPradeshCriminal
AppealNo.1106of2008(arisingoutofS.L.P.(Crl.)No.1944
of2008theSupremeCourthadconsideredacaseofallegedlya
drunkdrivercarryingmarriageparty.Driverlostitscontroland
thetruckwentofftheroad,rolleddowninthefieldleavingmany
personsdeadandmanyotherinjured.Thecarefulperusalofthis
casewouldshowtwothings,firstitisnotonrecordthatdriver
was drunk beyond permissible limits, in fact it was only an
allegation that driver was drunk, second the Supreme Court
while considering the circumstances did not take it in account

thatthedriverwasdrunk.Theonlycircumstanceconsideredby
the SupremeCourtwasthat three witnesses had stated that
thevehiclewasbeingdrivenasifitwasanaeroplane.Hence
practicallythecasebeforeSupremeCourtwasnotthatofadrunk
driver.
In(2004)10SCC794,thevictimwasdashedbyavehicle
andwaskilled.Onthisveryfactthedriverwasconvictedunder
Section302IPCbythetrialcourt.TheSupremeCourtheldthat
fromthefactsprovedneithertheintentiontokillthevictim,nor
the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death can be
inferred.TheSupremeCourtconvictedthedriverunderSection
304AIPC.Iamoftheopinionthatthefactsofthepresentcase
beforethiscourtaremuchalotmoregraveshowingacertain
knowledge,whichIamdiscussinginthisjudgement.
In(2008)1SCC791,abuswashitbyatrainatarailway
crossinginwhichseveralpersonsweregotinjuredandtwodied.
The accused was charged under Section 302 IPC and under
Section304IPC.TheSupremeCourtheldthatitwasonlyacase
underSection304AIPC.Fromtheperusalofthejudgement,the
relevant facts which weighed are that it was a unmanned
crossing.Secondlytheengineofthetrainhittherearportionof
thebusandtherewasalsoagreatchancethatitmightbeonlyan
errorofjudgementonthepartofthedriverofthebus.Itmust
benotedherethatthedriverwasnotdrunkatthattime.
Aperusal ofallthese authoritiescitedbyLd.Defence

Counselswouldshowthatallthesecaseswerethecasesof
simple rash driving and innone ofthose cases the drivers
weredrunk.
Thepresentcase,ontheotherhand,isofaveryhighdegree
inthegravityofgrossrecklessness.Theaccusedwassoheavily
drunkardthataknowledgecanbevalidlyimputeduponhimthat
ifhedrivesthevehicleheislikelytocausedeathofahuman
beingpassingontheroad.Despitebeingdrunk,accusedinstead
of carefully and slowly driving the vehicle, threw all the
precautionsawayanddrovethevehicleatexcessivelyhighspeed.
Ld.DefenceCounselshaverepeatedlyreferredtoHolloway,
J.,whodefinesculpablerashnessasunder:
Culpable rashness is
acting with the consciousness
thatthemischievousandillegal
consequences may follow but
withthehopethattheywillnot,
and often withthe beliefthat
the actor has taken sufficient
precautions to prevent their
happening. The imputability
arises from acting despite the
consciousness (luxuria).
Culpable negligence is acting
without the consciousness that
the illegal and mischievous
effect will follow, but in
circumstances which show that
the actor has not exercised the
caution incumbent upon him,
and that if he had he would
have had the consciousness.
Theimputabilityarisesfromthe
neglect of the civic duty of
circumspection.
Thisdefinitionoftheculpablerashactisqualifiedbythe
wordthattheactorbelievesthathehastakenallprecautions
to prevent the mischievous and illegal consequences. This
definitionhasbeenapprovedbytheSupremeCourtinvarious
judgementsreferredabovebyLd.DefenceCounsels.Ld.Defence
Counsels are also taking the shelter of this definition. Here
culpablerashness isequivalenttogrossrashness whichis
aningredientofSection304AIPC. Thisdefinitionwouldvery
clearlyshowthatanoffenceunderSection304AIPCwouldbe
madeoutonlywhenaccusedhadbeengrosslyrashandnegligent
thoughhebelievesthathehadtakensufficientprecautionsto
preventtheconsequencesandthereforethoughheknewthe
consequencesofhisact,but,heneverhopedforit. Assoon
asthisbeliefgoes,theculpablerashnesswouldbecomeofa
higher degree andifthisculpablerashnesshasresultedin
death, the appropriate provisions other than Section 304A
IPCwouldbeapplicable.Inthepresentcasealltheprecautions
have been thrown away to the winds by the accused Sanjeev
Nanda. He should not have driven the vehicle while he was
under such a great intoxication. Even if in view of certain
circumstanceshefounditnecessarytodrivethevehiclebackto
hishome,itwashisdutytobeextracautiouswhiledrivingthe
vehicle. Atleasthecouldhavedrivenitataveryslowspeed.
Oncetheseprecautionshavebeengivengoby,itcannotbesaid
thathehadabeliefthathehadtakenallprecautionstoprevent
thedisastrousconsequences. Thereforeinthepresentcase,the
degree of gross recklessness would go beyond the purview of
Section304AIPCandwouldfallsomewhereup.
WHATDIFFERENCEDOESADRUNKDRIVINGMAKE?
WhilediscussingthecaselawcitedbyLd.DefenceCounsel
above,IhavedifferentiatedthejudgmentsofSupremeCourtwith
thepresentcaseonthegroundthatnoneofthosecaseswereof
drunkendriving.
Iamstressinguponthedrunkenconditionofapersontime
andagainwithaviewtoascertainastowhatknowledgecanbe
imputedtoadrunkenpersonwhoisdrivingavehicle.Iadvert
toSection185ofMotorVehicleAct.Asperthisprovision,ifa
drunkenperson(whereevertheworddrunkenpersonappear,it
should be inferred that he has consumed the liquor beyond
permissiblelimit)attemptstodriveavehicle,hecanbepunished
toimprisonmentuptotwoyears(forthefirstoffencesixmonths
andthesecondoffenceuptotwoyears).Whatisthepurposeof
punishinga drunkperson evenatthestagewhenhehasonly
attempted to drive the vehicle and has not actually driven it.
The purpose is very clear. The Legislature imputes a specific
knowledge to the offender that if he drives the vehicle in a
drunken state, the accused would be creating an extremely
dangeroussituationforthepassengersontheroadaswellasfor
theoccupantsofthemotorvehicleandthesuchdrivingislikely
toleadtodisastrousconsequenceslikedeathofahumanbeing.
Thereis anotherprovision inaMotorVehicleActwhich

requirestobelookedinto.AsperSection184MotorVehicleAct
apersonwhodrivesavehicleindangerousmannerispunishable
up to two years of imprisonment (for the first offence six
months,forthesecondoffenceuptotwoyears).Thisdangerous
drivingcanbeequatedwith grossrashness.Therearecases
where a person is driving a vehicle in drunken state and also

drivingthevehicleingrossrash/dangerousmanner.Suchperson
wouldattractpunishmentU/S184MotorVehicleActaswellas
U/S185MotorVehicleAct.ThecumulativesentenceofSection
184and185MotorVehicleActwouldbeuptooneyearincase
of first offence and upto four years in case of repetition.
Therefore,incaseofrepetitionoftheseoffences,thecumulative
gravityoffences U/S184andSection185ofMotorVehicleAct
wouldbehigherthanthepunishmentprovidedfortheoffence
Section304AIPCwherethepunishmentprovidedisonlyupto
two years. Of course there is no enhanced sentence for
repetitionofanoffenceunderSection304AIPC.
Acomparativestudyoftheseprovisionswouldshowthatin
caseofrashdriving,causingdeathofahumanbeing,legislation
has thought it appropriate to punish an offender to an
imprisonmentuptotwoyears. Whereasmaximumpunishment
providedunderMotorVehicleActforrashdrivingbyadrunken
drivermaycountuptofouryearseventhoughhehasnotkilled
any person. The reasons for it is that a drunken driver is
presumedtohavetheknowledgethatbydrivingthevehiclein
suchstateofintoxicationheislikelytocausedeathofthehuman
beings. Therefore, to my mind, a conjoined reading of above
provisions and the sentencing pattern are enough to conclude
that if a drunken person drives a vehicle in highly rash or
dangerousmannerandtherebykillsahumanbeing,theoffence
goesbeyondthepurviewofSection304AIPCandsuchgross
recklessnesswouldeitherfallwithin purviewofSection300(4)
IPCwhichispunishableU/S302IPCorwithinthepurviewof
thirdpartof299IPCwhichispunishableU/S304IIIPC.
Sh.PremKumar,adv.foraccusedSanjeevNandahasfileda
consultation paper on Legal Reforms to Combat Road
Accidents pertainingto LawCommissionofIndia. Intheend
ofthispaperfewquestionshavebeenframedforthepurposeof
suggestions/views/comments.Ireproducethesameasunder:
8.3 Do you agree that
causing death of any person
through driving under the
influence of drink or drugs
shouldnotmerelybedeemedto
have been committed in a rash
or negligent manner, but be
made an offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to
murder punishable under
Section304IPC?
8.4 Or, do you agree that
the offenceof causing death of
any person through driving
undertheinfluenceofdrink or
drugsshouldcontinuetobean
offence under Section 304A,
IPC, but the minimum term of
imprisonment of two years for
the same be prescribed in the
saidsection?
Both the questions are very relevant to the emerging

scenarioindevelopingcountrylikeIndiawhereadrivingculture
isyettotakeroots. RegardingthefirstquestionIwouldsay
thatthedeathscausedbyadrunkendriverdofallwithinthe
purviewofSection304(II)IPCevenaspertheexistinglaw.
Infact asperthelawasstandstoday,ifadrunken driver

drivesamotorvehiclewithagreatspeedandrashmannerin
acrowdedstreet,hemightbeliabletohavecommittedan
offence under fourth part of Section 300 IPC punishable
underSection302IPCandincaseadrunkendriverdrivesa
motorvehicleandkillsaperson,hiscasewouldfallunder
Section304(II)IPC. Itmustnotbeforgottenthatamotor
vehicle being driven by a drunk driver is virtually a death
machineontheroad.
Thereforetosumuptheabovediscussion,thelawimputes
theknowledgeuponadrunkendriverthatbydrivingthevehicle
in such a state of intoxication, he is likely to cause death of
humanbeingontheroad.Thisisthereasonwhythelawwould
punishhimevenifheattemptstodrivethevehicleandthough
hehasnotactuallydrivingthesaidvehicle.Ifsuchadrunken
person actually drives the vehicle and that too in highly
dangerous manner or with high degree of recklessness, the
knowledgethathisactislikelytocausedeathofhumanbeings
on the road, becomes more specific and more pronounced. I
havepointedoutthatinallthecaseswhich came beforethe
SupremeCourt,driverswerenotdrunk.Ontheotherhand,the
evidence on record makes it very clear that accused Sanjeev
Nandawasexcessivelydrunkandwasdrivingthevehicleatan
excessivespeed.Insuchasituation,itcanbesafelyinferredthat
whenaccusedSanjeevNandastartedwithhisvehicleinhighly
drunkstateofintoxicationbeyondpermissiblelimit,hestarted
withtheknowledgethathisactmightresultindeathofsome
persons.Whenhedrovethevehicleatextremelyhighspeedand
did not even slow down the vehicle on seeing seven persons
standingontheroad,hisknowledgethathisactislikelytocause
death,becomesmorespecificandmorecertain.Afterhittingthe
persons standing on the road, the vehicle took a right turn in

which few persons who were underneath the bonnet were
draggedandhittherightsidedivider.Thesceneofcrimeshows
thattherearescratchmarksonpointBtoConthedivider.The
videographywouldshowthat therearethreelongblooddrag
marksontheroad.Thisshowsthatdeadbodieswhichhadcome
underneath the bonnet had been dragged for quite a long
distance. Thereisnothing onrecordtopresumethat accused
SanjeevNandaneverknewthattheaccusedpersonshadcome
underneaththebonnetofhiscar.Alookonthephotographsof
BMW car would show that due to impact of the offence, the
windscreen fragmented. Insuch asituation, I have no reason
whytheaccusedshouldnotstopthevehiclethereandthenand
whyheshouldcontinuewithdriving. Infact,thedrivingof
vehicle in a drunk condition at a very highly reckless manner
whenthewindscreenhadbecomefragmentedandopaquewould
amount to highest degree of recklessness. Since the charge
containingtheallegationsformingtheingredientsofSection300
(4) IPC has not been framed, I am not inclined to discuss
whetherthegravityofrecklessnesscoupledwiththeknowledge
thathisactwasimminentlydangeroustocausedeathwouldnot
be discussed by me. But, to my mind, the gravity and the
knowledgeisalmosttouchingtheboundariesofSection300(4)
IPC.Insuchasituation,thefactsofthecasecanfallwithinthe
purviewofSection299(PartIII)IPCanditwouldbeunjustified
totreatthepresentcaseunderSection304AIPC.
Thereforethecumulativeeffectoftheabovediscussionthat
sceneofcrimeasobservedbythepoliceofficials,thesiteplan
andthevideographycoupledwiththefactthatthedriverofthe
offendingvehiclenamelySanjeevNanda washighlydrunkand
themannerinwhichtheoffencewascommitted,definitelyplaces
the offence on the highest boundary of Section 304 (II) IPC.

Once the gravity is so serious, as per the dictum of Hon'ble
SupremeCourt,Section304AIPCwouldhavetobeignored.
WHETHERSUNILKULKARNIISARELIABLEWITNESS
Tillnow,Ihavediscussedtheentireevidenceavailableon
the judicial record while excluding the testimony of Sunil
KulkarnibecauseLddefencecounselsandatonestage,eventhe
prosecutionhadbeenassailinghiscredibility.ItisarguedbyLd
defence counsels that this is a witness who has no permanent
address.Thecaseofcheatinghasbeenregisteredagainsthimby
oneGauriShanker.InaprogrammetelecastbyIndiaTV,Gauri
ShankertoldthatSunilKulkarniwasacheatandwasinMumbai
on the date of offence. Ld defence counsels have drawn my
attentiontothefactthatthesummonsofthiswitnessareample
proofofhisshadycharacter.Lddefencecounselshavedrawn
myattentiontothefactthatinthereportonthesummons,itis
written that Gaurishanker had given him mobile phone. Ld
defencecounselshavedrawnmyattentionthatintheregisterof
ShivalikHotel,witnessSunilKulkarnihadgivenhismobilephone
number. It is argued that if accident had taken place in his
presence,hecouldhaveinformedthepolicethroughhismobile
phonewhichhedidnot.Itissubmittedthattheregistershows
that this witness left the hotel in the evening of 9.1.99 for
Nahan.Ontheotherhand,beforethiscourt,hetestifiesthathe
hadleftforBhopal. Itisarguedthatasperhisowntestimony,
thiswitnessreturnedfromBhopalon12.1.99 buthedoesnot
stated where he remained for three more days. Ld defence
counselshavedrawnmyattentionthatthiswitnessapproached
thepoliceon15.1.99.
Ld defencecounselshave drawn my attention to the fact

thatthewitnesshadleftforBhopalinthemorning andstates
thathereachedinBhopalonthenextdaymorning.Itisargued
thatitisimpossible andanytrain takesnormally10hoursto
reachBhopal.Itisfurtherarguedthattilldate,thiswitnesswas
never been served upon. Rather he appears before the court
himself.ItisfurtherarguedbyLddefencecounselsthatevenif
it is presumed that the witness was present at the spot, his
testimony cannot be relied upon. It is argued that he was in
policeprotection andtherefore,hewasunderthepolicehands
Itisfurtherarguedthatevenifhehadseentheaccident,hehas
nottestifiedanywherethataccused SanjeevNandawasdriving
the vehicle. Rather at one place he testifies that another
occupantofthecarcameoutofthedriverseat.Ldcounselsfor
accused arguethat suchwitnessshouldbethrown Lockstock
andbarrelandhistestimonyshouldbediscardedentirely,more
so,becauseheisachancewitness.
It is true that Sunil Kulkarni possesses a very peculiar

personality. He appears to be a character direct from
novels of Charles Dickens and has very strange aspects to his
personality.Butthetruthisthatsuchpeoplearenotuncommon.
Suchpeoplebehaveinaverystrangemanner. Normallysuch
persons are very sharp. But at the same time throwing the
evidenceofsuchwitnessatfirstinstancewouldnotbejustified.
Suchpersonsmaybetruthfulwitnessestoanevent.Ifthey
are an eye witness of an offence, there is nothing in law to
disbelieve them. However, the courts would be at guard and
wouldbeextracautiousinweighingtheirevidence.Infactsuch
awitnesshastopassthroughaclosescrutinybythecourt.If
histestimonyiswellcorroborated,thereshouldbenohitchin
believingthem.
The prosecution has proved a register from the Shiva

ContinentalHotelthataccusedwaspresentinDelhion9.1.08till
till 12:30 pm. Therefore his presence in Delhi in the early
morningof10.1.99 cannotbeimprobable. Histestimony that
hehadstartedfortherailwaystationtocatchaBhopaltrainis
substantiatedbythefactthathe purchased adocumentfrom
Bhopal on 11.1.99 and the same was verified. In fact the
accusedhadnotdisputedthatSunilhadpurchasedadocument
fromBhopalon11.1.99.Ihaveseentheprogrammetelecast
byIndiaTV. Aperusalofthatinterviewwouldshow thatthe
interviewer is almost putting the words in the mouth of
Gaurishankertosaythatonthedateofoffence,SunilKulkarni
was in Mumbai. Though Gaurishanker is unambiguous in
sayingthatSunilKulkarniwasacheatbutheishesitanttostate
thatonthedayofoffence,SunilKulkarniwasinMumbai.The
provedfactthaton9.1.99upto12.30amSunilKulkarniwasin
Delhiandon11.1.99,hewasinBhopalsupportshistestimony
thatinthemorningof10th,corroborates histestimonythatin
the early hours of morning, Sunil Kulkarni was very much in
Delhi.
Now, this court is to see as to whether he had seen the

incidenthimself.Thiswitnesshastestifiedthatwhenhecameto
thepolice,hemetSHO LodhiColony,policeaskedhimtogive
his version in writing. The description of the incident in his
application to SHO matches the scene of crime. Though the
valueofthisletter isthatofstatementU/S161CrPC butthe
conductofawitnessincomingtopoliceandgivingthedetailof
of the incident corroborates the prosecution case that this
witnesshadhimselfseentheincident.Itappearsthatpolicewas
initially doubtful and therefore police produced this witness

before Sh Raj Kumar Chauhan, the then Ld Metropolitan
Magistratewhorecorded thestatementofSunilKulkarni U/S
164 CrPC. The testimony of this witness before this court is
substantiallyconsistentwithhispreviousstatementsaswellasit
matchesthedescriptionofsceneofcrimementionedintherukka
aswellasinthesiteplan. ButasaJudge,Iwaslookingfor
further corroboration so as to determine as to whether this
witnesshadactuallyseentheaccidenthimself.Thetestimonyof
thiswitnesswas readtimeandagainandIhave perused his
testimonyverycarefullybycomparingthesamewiththesiteplan
andsceneofcrimeasappearinginvideography. Thiswitness
hs testified that after hitting the persons, the vehicle struck
againstthe middledividerandtherethisvehiclestopped. Itis
pertinenttonotethatPWManojTiwarihasalsotestifiedthatthe
offendingvehicle hadstoppedaftersomedistance. Therefore,
thetestimonyofSunilKulkarniiscorroboratedbythetestimony
of another witness namely PW2 Manoj Tiwari. This witness
furthertestifiedthatalltheoccupantsofthevehiclecameout
ofthecarandinspectedthecarfrom frontsideandtheback
side. One of the occupants stated accused Sanjeev Nanda to
rush. Itispertinenttonotethat thisisonlywitnesswho
testifiedbeforethecourtforthefirsttimethatthereafterthe
vehiclewasdrivenbackandthenitspedaway. Thefact of
reversingthevehiclewasnotstatedtothepolicebyanyofthe
witnesses.InfacteveninhisstatementunderSection164CrPC,
thiswitnesshasnotstatedthefactofreversingthevehicle.The
factofreversingthevehiclecametothelightforthefirsttimein
thetestimonyofSunilKulkarniandthesamewasnotbroughtto
light by any witness either during investigation or during the
trial.Inthesiteplanaswellasintherukka,policedidnotnote
down a very particular fact which could have shown that
actuallythevehiclehadbeenreversed.TheInvestigatingOfficer
duetooversighthasnotshownthetyremarkscaused bythe
blood which show that vehicle had been reversed. But a
carefulperusal ofthevideographywouldshow this evidence
veryclear. INfact duringthearguments,Lddefencecounsels
have pointed out as to how blood stained tyre mark going
obliquelytowardsthemiddledividerisseen.Thedefencetried
to take the advantage of this tyre mark as that of some other
vehiclewhichdisturbedthesceneofcrimeandthrewthedead
bodiesatalongdistances.Ifweviewthevideography,thereisa
bloodspreadontheroadnearpointBasshowninthesiteplan.
Thispointisnearelectricpoleno.11asisclearfromthesiteplan.
Thiselectricpolewouldalsobeenseeninthevideography. At
thispointalotofbloodislying.Onebloodytyremarkobliquely
goesuptothepoolofbloodbutitstopsthereanddoesnotcross
thepoolofblood.Acarefulperusalofthisbloodytyremarksin
thevideographywouldshowthatitisthebloodmarkscausedby
a tyre of a vehicle which was reversed and thereafter it was
drivenstraight.
Thisportionofthevideopgrahyleadstoaninferencethat
first the vehicle hit the middle divider while someone was
entangledunderneaththecar. The obliquebloodytyremarks
could have been received when the vehicle was reversed back
andthereafterthethreeparallelbloodareseenwhenthevehicle
spedaway.TheevidenceofSunilKulkarnithatthevehiclewas
reversed and sped away while the dead bodies were lying
underneathbonnetofthecariswellcorroboratedbythisabove
stated portion of videography. Till the appearance of Sunil
Kulkarnibeforethiscourt,noneofthewitnessesincludingSunil
Kulkarnihimselfhadstatedthatthevehiclehadbeenreversed
after it was inspected by its occupants. Furthermore, the
InvestigatingOfficerremainedoblivioustothisobliquebloodtyre
marks and the Investigating Officer did not mention this fact
aboutthis particularbloodtrailanywhereintheinvestigation.
But this witness mentioned this fact very categorically in the
courtandthesamestandsdulycorroboratedbythevideography
scene of crime. In view of this very specific and well
corroboratedevidenceofSunilKulkarni Iamleftinnodoubt
thathecouldnothavetestifiedinthismannerunlesshehimself
hadseentheoffence.ImaypointoutthatinthestatenmentU/S
161CrPCManojTiwariandHarishanker,thereisnomentionof
reversing the vehicle. The oblique bloody tyre mark in the
videography has no other explanation except the one which is
offeredbySunilKulkarni.Infact,Lddefencecounselshavetried
totakeadvantageofthisbloodtrailbyarguingthatsomeother
vehiclehaddisturbedthesceneofcrime,whichtomymindhas
nobasis.
Iamoftheopinionthataccidenttookplaceatabout4.30
amandpolicereachedatabout5am.Thetrafficatthattime
couldnothavebeenmuch anditshouldnotbe expectedthat
everyonedrives vehicleinsuchrashandnegligentmanner. In
fact,eventhewitnesseswhohadbeenwonoverbytheaccused
personshavenottestifiedthatsomeothervehicleranoverthese
or disturbed the scene of crime. Therefore, the witness Sunil
Kulkarnihastestifiedbeforethiscourtonsuchamaterialpoint
whichhadbeenignoredbyallthewitnessesandtheInvestigating
Officers. In fact, even Ld defence counsels were not able to
understandhowthisbloodtyremarkappearsnearthe middle
divider. In these circumstances it stands proved beyond
reasonabledoubt thatSunilKulkarniisaneyewitnesstothe
offence. Ihavealreadydiscussedthatprosecutionhasproved
beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sanjeev Nanda was
drivingthevehicle.Itisneitheracaseofprosecutionnorcase
ofaccusedSanjeevNandathatthevehiclewas beingdrivenat
the time of the offence by Sidharth Gupta or accused Manik
Kapuror anyother occupants. Therefore a straystatementof
Sunil Kulkarni wherein he has stated that Sidharth Gupta had
come out of the driver seat should be ignored. Even if this
statementistakentobetrue,itdoesnotleadtoaninferencethat
Sidharth Gupta was driving the vehicle at any stage of the
incident.Nowthiscourtistoseeastowhatistestifiedbywitness
SunilKulkarniinhisevidence.
SunilKulkarniwassummonedbythiscourtunderSection
311CrPC.Hehadbeendroppedbytheprosecutionbutsincehis
statementunderSection164CrPCwasverymuchonjudicialfile,
andthetwoeyewitnessesnamelyPW1HariShankerYadavand
PW2ManojMalikhaveturnedhostile,Ithoughtitappropriateto
summonSunilKulkarniasacourtwitness. Inhisevidencehe
testifiedthatwhenhereachedneartheplaceofincident,hesaw
agroupofpeoplewhowerestandingabitinthemiddleofthe
road.Fromhisoppositedirectionontheroadveryheavylights
ofavehiclewereseenbyhim.Thelightsweresopowerfulthat
hecouldnotseemuch.Thesaidvehiclewasablackcarandit
hitthosepeoplestandingontheroad. Whenthecarhitthose
peopleafewpersonsflewintheairandremainingfellonthe
sideofthecar.Thewitnessheardthesoundofapplicationof
brakes and thereafter he heard another sound caused by
hittingbythecar.Thethreepersonscameoutofthesaidcar
andtheysawthedamagesonthecar. Thereafterallthethree
personssatinthecarandthecarwastakenabitreverseand
thereafter took away the car with speed. This witness was
crossexaminedbySh.I.U.KhanthethenPublicProsecutorfor
Stateon29.5.2007. It appearsthatfortheprosecution,Sunil
Kulkarniwasstillanunreliablewitness. Iamleavingoutthis
portionoftheexaminationatpresentanddirectlycometothe
crossexaminationofthewitnessbySh.RajeevMohanthenew
Public Prosecutor. The change of public prosecutor was
occasioned by the relay of a sting operation by The NDTV on
30.5.2007i.e.Onedayafter29.5.2007onwhichthewitnesswas
cross examined by Sh. I. U. Khan the then Special Public
Prosecutor. In this telecast the Special Public Prosecutor and
defence counsel Sh. R. K. Anand were shown influencing the
witnessSunilKulkarni.WhileassessingthetestimonyofSunil
Kulkarniitmustbekeptinmindthathewasfacingapublic
prosecutor who was acting in collusion with the defence
counsel.TherecentjudgementofHighCourtofDelhiinWP
(CRL.) NO. 796/2007 pronounced on 21.8.2008 is an eye
opener in respect of the conduct of the special public
prosecutor and the defence counsel, both of whom were
senioradvocatesinthepresentcase. Thereforethewitness
was clearly under great mental pressure at the time of
recording of his evidence. Hence the contradictions and
improvements onthe periphery appearing in histestimony
shouldbeseeninthatlight.
The witness was further put to cross examination by Sh.

Rajeev Mohan Ld. Special Public Prosecutor and in this cross
examinationthewitnessgaveadetailedtestimony. Hetestified
that5or6personswerestandingnearthetreetowardsHudco
Building. The vehicle which was coming from the side of
Nizamuddinhitthose6persons.Thevehiclewasataveryvery
highspeed.Duetoimpactoftheaccident,2or3personsfellon
thebonnetandwindscreenofthecar. Sh.RajeevMohanLd.
SpecialPublicProsecutorspreadthescaledsiteplaninthecourt
andthewitnesstestifiedwithreferencetothesaidsiteplan.He
testifiedthatthecarhadhitthepersonsatpointAi.e.onthefoot
path on the side of petrol pump. Witness testified that the
offendingvehicletravelledfrompointAtoBinthesiteplanon
thesamespeedorevenatahigherspeed.ThisBpointisonthe
rightsideoftheroadifwecomefromNizamuddinside. The
witness further testified that while the offending vehicle was
proceedingsfrompointAtoB,2or3personswerestillonthe
bonnetofthecarandinthisprocess2or3personsfelldownand
rolleddownfromthebonnet,weredraggedandwerecrushedby
the car upto point B. All this happened within fraction of
seconds. The persons who were hit were crying and shouting.
AfterhittingatpointBwhichapointatmiddledividerofthe
road, the offending vehicle had friction with divider to some
distanceandstopped.Thewitnesstestifiedthatalltheoccupants
ofthecarcameoutandinspectedthecarbyseeingitfromfront
sideaswellfromthebackside. Whentheseoccupantswere
seeing the car, some persons were entangled under the
bonnetofthecar.Thewitnesstestifiedthatoneoccupanttold
let us rush and thereafter first the vehicle was taken in
reversedirectionandthereafteritwasdrivenawayatahigh
speed.Thewitnessalsostatedthatduetothisaccidentthewind
screenofthecarhadbecomeopaqueandthereafterthedriver
tookouthisneckfromdriversidewindowanddroveitaway.
Thewitnessalsoadmittedonasuggestionthatwhenthevehicle
wasdrivenawayfrompointBinthesiteplan, itdraggedthe
personsentangledunderthevehicleandcrushedthesameand
wentawayleavingthepartsofthebodyandthesepartsofthe
bodyanddeadbodieshadfallenontheroadtowardsflowofthe
trafficandtheluggageofallthose6personshadscatteredonthe
road.ThiswitnessadmittedincrossexaminationbyLd.Defence
Counselsthathehadnotstatedthecolourofthecarasblackin
hisstatementunderSection161CrPCand164CrPC. Healso
admittedthathehasstatedinhisstatementunderSection164
CrPCthathehadseentheincidentfromthedistanceof300feet.
Whereasintestimonybeforethiscourthehadstatedthathewas
atthedistanceof60feet. Thewitnessexplainedthatnowhe
couldnotsayastowhetherhesawtheincidentfrom300feetor
60feet.Thewitnessstronglydeniedthesuggestionthatonthe
dateandtimeoftheoffencehewasnotpresentatthespot.He
deniedthatonthedateofoffencehewaswithGauriShanker
YadavinMumbai.
Thiswitnesshasgivenvividaccountastohowtheshocking
incidenttookplace. WhereashisstatementunderSection161
CrPC aswell ashis statement under Section164 CrPC do not
mentionthatthevehiclewasreversedbackthereafteritwassped
away and that the offending car was of black colour but his
testimonybeforethiscourtwasmoredetailedthanhisprevious
statement.Nonmentioningofcolourinhispreviousstatementis
ofnoconsequencebeingnotmaterialbutquestioniswhetherhis
testimony that the vehicle was reversed is a deliberate
improvementamountingtocontradictionoritisatrueaccountof
theincident.Asamatterofexperienceitisseenthatawitness
testifies about any incident in greater details before the court.
The witness is testifying before this court that car was first
reversedandthereafteritwasspedaway. Incrossexamination
bySh.RameshGupta,adv.foraccusedSanjeevNanda,hehas
testified that he had seen the tyre marksdue topassing of
tyresontheblood. Thewitnessalsoadmitsthatthesetyre
markswereproceedingstraightaswellastowardstheright
side. This suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel is in respect of
blood tyre marks/blood trails going seen towards the middle
divider on the right side of the road if we proceed from
NizamuddinflyovertowardsDyalSinghCollege.Ihavealready
discussedhowtheobliquetyremarkscouldhavecome.Thisfact
thatthevehiclewasreversedisinexclusiveknowledgeofSunil
Kulkarniandthevideographyofthesceneofcrimewhichshow
anobliquebloodtyremarkaswellasthreestraightbloodydrag
marks on the road fully prove the testimony of Sunil Kulkarni
thatthevehiclewastakenabitreverseandthereafterspedaway
whilethefewpersonswerestillunderthebonnetofthecar.This
ishowtheentangledpersonsweredraggedandhadfallenoneby
oneontheroad.
ThereforeappraisalofthetestimonyofPWSunilKulkarni
would show that he is telling the same story which is being
spokenbythesceneofcrime.
Therefore not only the testimony of Sunil Kulkarni in

respectofastohowtheoffencetookplaceisworthyofcredence
butthesameisalsowellcorroboratedbythesceneofcrime.
WHATOFFENCEDISCLOSEDFROMTHETESTIMONY
OFSUNILKULKARNI
Ld. Defence Counsel have vehemently argued that even

from the testimony of Sunil Kulkarni, at the most an offence
underSection304AIPCwouldbedisclosed.Ontheotherhand
Ld. APP argues that the travel of the offending car from
Nizamuddin area and till hitting the person at point A and
thereafter reaching upto point B amounts an offence under
Section304(PartII)IPCbutwhenthecarstoppedatpointBand
theaccusedsawthepersonsentangledbeneaththebonnetwho
wereshoutingandcrying,stillhedrovethevehicleathighspeed.
ThiswitnessisenoughtoprovethataccusedSanjeevNandahad
caused death by causing such bodily injuries with intention to
causedeathandtherebyhehascommittedoffenceunderSection
304(PartI)IPC.
I disagree with the submissions of Ld. APP. It is a well

settledlawtheinferenceastowhetheranaccusedhasintention
to commit an offence or he had a knowledge about the
consequences,hastobegatheredfromthecircumstances. The
following definition in Salmond On Jurisprudence is
reproducedasunder:
Intentionisthepurposeor
designed with which an act is
done. Itistheforeknowledge
oftheactanddesirebeingthe
causeoftheact,inasmuchas
they fulfill themselves through
theoperationofthewill.Anact
isintentionalif,andinwasfar
as, it exists in fact, the idea
realizing itself in the fact
becauseofthedesirebywhichit
isaccompanied.
To put it simply, knowledge of the consequence coupled

withthedesiretoreachthoseconsequencesformsthesubstratum
ofintention. Inotherwords,acombinedforceofknowledge
ofaswellasdesire foraparticular consequence wouldbe
termedasintention. Nowthiscourtsistoseeastowhether
theaccusedSanjeevNandahadtherequisiteintentiontocommit
theoffenceornot.
ForthispurposetestimonyofSunilKulkarniwillhavetobe
read again. In the testimony Sunil Kulkarni has testified that
whenthevehiclehitthemiddledivideratpointB,theoccupants
ofthecarcameoutandinspectedthedamage. Ihavealready
heldthattheaccusedSanjeevNandahimselfwasthedriverof
the offendingvehicle andeven ifhiswindscreenhad become
opaqueduetofallingoftheinjuredpersons,Inthisprocessitis
notpossiblethataccusedSanjeevNandashouldnothaveseen
thepersonswhoareentangledunderthebonnetofthecar,at
leastwhenthecarstoppedatpointBnearelectricpoleno.11and
whenhecameoutandinspectedthevehiclefrombacksideas
wellasfromthefrontside.Thewitnesshastestifiedthatinjured
personswerealsocrying. Thisisanotherreasonthataccused
Sanjeev Nanda must have known that a few persons are
entangledunderthebonnetofhisvehicle.ButIwoulddisagree
with Ld. APP that accused Sanjeev Nanda intentionally drove
awaythevehicle bycausingsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelyto
cause death of the persons so entangled. This portion of
Section304(1)IPCcorrespondstosecondpartofsection299
IPC. Theintentionisthenecessaryingredientofthissection.
AsperthetestimonyofSunilKulkarni,whentheoccupantsofthe
car started roaming around the car to check it, one of the
occupantstoldSanjeevletusrunorSanzletusgo.Itappears
thatthesewordstriggeredtheresponseinthemindofaccused
Sanjeev Nanda to escape away from the spot. Thereafter
althoughaccusedSanjeevNandaknewthatafewpersonswere
entangledunderthebonnetbecausehehimselfhadseenthem
whiletheyfellonthebonnetandthereaftercameunderneaththe
car as well as when Sanjeev Nanda inspected the car after
roamingaroundit,theactofdrivingawaythecarwasactually
intendedtoescapeawayfromthespot. Otherwisealsothereis
no reason why he would desire to kill the persons who were
already injured. Therefore I am of the opinion that from the
circumstancesattendingtheeventatthatparticulartimeitdoes
notappeartomethataccusedSanjeevNandacouldhavedesired
tocausedeathofthesepersons.Infact,accusedSanjeevNanda
musthavebeeninastateofshockandpanicthereforeheacted
onbeingactuatedbyhiscoaccusedandspedawayhiscar.This
particular testimony of Sunil Kulkarni rules out the intention
requisite for Section 304(1) IPC. As seen as I have already
discussedthatintentionhastwoprominentfeatures.Firstisthe
knowledge of the consequence and second, a desire for the
consequence. As soon as the element of desire for the
consequencesgoes,thementalstateofanaccusedfallsshortof
intention andthecourtisleftwiththeonlyoptiontoattribute
knowledgetoaccusedSanjeevNanda.
Whencomesthequestionofknowledge,theinquirywould
startrevolvingaroundSection300(4)IPC,partIIIofSection299
IPCandSection304AIPC.
ThereisnochargeofSection300(4)IPCreadwithSection
302IPCbutstillIwouldliketodiscussthisalittlebit. Asper
Section 300(4) IPC, culpable homicide is murder if the actor
knowsthat itissoeminentlydangerousthatitmust,inall
probability,causedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelyto
causedeath.
Whensomepersonsareentangledunderthebonnetandthe
vehicleisdrivenataveryhighspeed,theactissoimminently
dangerous that it would cause death in all probability. Since
relevant charge has not been framed, I would only hold that
althoughtheoffenceisalmosttouchingthebordersofSection
300(4) IPC but has not fully arrived at it. Once that is the
situation,theoffencewouldfallbacktoSection299(partIII)IPC
punishable under Section 304 (part II) IPC. As soon as the
gravityoftheoffenceisofsuchanaturethatitistouchingthe
borders of the offence of murder, it would be absolutely
unreasonabletobringtheoffencewithinthedefinitionofSection
304AIPC. Ld.DefenceCounselsaswellasLd.Prosecutorhave
referred to a judgement Regina Vs.Maloney [1985] AIIE.R.
1025 and both the parties have relied upon this English
judgementintheirfavour. Afterperusingthesaidjudgement,I
am of the opinion that in India these facts would fall under
Section300(4)IPCorthirdpartofSection299IPCandinno
mannerthesamewouldfallunderSection304AIPC.
Mydiscussionsinthisregardaboutthecircumstancesand
evidenceonrecordinearlierpartoftheevidenceaswellasthe
testimony of accused Sunil Kulkarni cumulatively leads to
provingitacaseunderSection304(partII)IPCandIconvict
accusedSanjeevNandaaccordingly.
DESTRUCTIONOFEVIDENCE
TheprosecutionallegesthataccusedSanjeevNandaparked
hisvehicleat50 GolfLinkaftercommittingtheoffence. Itis
allegedbytheprosecutionthataccusedRajeevGuptaandhistwo
servantsnamelyaccusedShyamSinghandaccusedBholaNath
washedthecaranddestroyedthematerialevidencewhichwas
presentonthecarinformofblood,flashpiecesandfingerprints.
Ld.DefenceCounselhavedrawnmyattentiontothedefinitionof
Section201IPC.
Sh.G.P.Thareja,adv.arguedthatthefirstingredientof
thisoffenceisthattheaccusedshould havereasonstoknow
thatanoffencehasbeencommitted.ItisarguedbyLd.Defence
Counselthatthereisnoevidencetoshowthataccusedpersons
had knowledge or reason to know that the offence has been

committed. Itisarguedthatatthemosttheyfoundadamage
vehicleparkedintheirhouseuponwhichfleshpiecesandblood
stainswerepresent. Avehiclecanbedamagedanditcanhave
bloodandfleshpiecesduetoanaccidentwithanimalalso.Itis
argued that presence of stray animal on Delhi roads is not
uncommon.Thereforeatthemosttheevidenceonrecordisthat
accusedhadtheknowledgeofanaccident.ItisarguedbySh.G.
P.Thareja,adv.thatcommittinganaccidentisnooffence.Ihave
considered the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel and I most
humbly disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel.
Section 201 starts with word whoever, knowing or having
reasonstobelievethatanoffencehasbeencommitted.........
Itmeansthatprosecutionneednottoprovethatitwasbrought
totheknowledgeofanaccusedbysomeonethatanoffencehas
beencommitted. Theingredientsoftheoffencewouldbefully
satisfiedifprosecutionisabletoshowthataparticularaccused
washavingthereasonstobelievethatanoffencehasbeen
committed.Inthepresentcasethevehiclewasbadlydamaged.
Bloodstainsandflashwasavailableonthevehicle. Infactthe
fingerprintswerealsoavailable.Insuchasituationmanwould
havethereasonstobelievethatsomehumanbeingmightalso
havebeenkilledbythepresentvehicle,thoughitmaylateron
turn out that it was simply an accident. It is not the case of
accusedRajeevGupta,BholaNathandShyamSinghthataccused
SanjeevNandaandManikKapurandSidharthGupta,whoisthe
sonofRajeevGuptahadsimplystatedtothemthattheirvehicle
hadhitstrayanimal. InsuchasituationIamconvincedthat
accused persons have reasons to believe that some criminal
offenceinvolvingdeathofhumanbeingshadtakenplace.Imay
pointoutthatSidharthGuptaisthesonofRajeevGuptahimself.
He was the best persons to be brought as defence witness by
accusedpersonstoproveastowhathadbeenstatedbySidharth
Gupta,SanjeevNandaandManikKapurastohowthevehicle
wasdamagedandwhyitishavingbloodstainsandfleshpieces.
I may point out that Sidharth Gupta has been arrayed as an
accused, but later on was discharged, but Sunil Kulkarni has
testifiedthathewasoneoftheoccupantsofthecar.
InAIR1975,SC1703,GajenderSinghVsStateofUP,the
SupremeCourtheldthatifawitnessisavailabletoanaccused
andhedoesnotproducehim,thesameisthestrongestpossible
circumstancetodiscreditthedefenceversion.
I may point out that there has been a special effort to

destroytheevidence.InspectorJagdishPandeyhastestifiedin
his evidence that the backside number plate of BMW car was
missing.Aperusalofvideographywouldalsoshowthatonthe
backsideoftheBMWcar,thenumberplatewasnotvisible.The
frontsidenumberplatehadfallenontheroadatthetimeofthe
hitting the vehicle with the unfortunate persons. The
videographywouldshowthatthebacksideno.plateofthecar
ismissing.Thespaceforbacksidenumberplateofthebackcar
issuchthatitdoesnotshowanydamage.Thereforeinfactitis
notpossiblethatitcouldhavebeenhitandgotdamageddueto
accident. Thefactthatnonvisibilityofthenumberplateisan
indicatorthateffortwasmadetoremoveanumberplatesothat
noonecanidentifythenumberofthecar. Imakeitclearthat
charge for removing the number plate has not been framed.
Thereforeconvictioncannotbeplacedonrecord for removing
the number plate but these circumstances can be taken in
consideration to assess as to what was the intention of the
accusedpersons.
It is not in dispute that accused Shyam Singh was a

chowkidar in 50 Golf Links at that time. Who removed this
numberplate isinspecialknowledgeofthisman. SI Jagdish
Pandeytestifiedthat whenhereached50GolfLink,thewater
wascomingoutofthathouse. Thevideographywouldshow
thatthefloor/pathwaywherethecarwasparkedappearstobe
washed. TheFingerProficientwhocameatabout10amalso
testifiedthatthecarwaswet. Theaccusedpersonsaswellas
thedefencewitnessnamelyDW9SudhirSareenhavestatedthat
the car was not washed. In view of the presence of positive
evidence ie the testimonies of the witnesses and the wet floor
wherecarwasparked,thetestimoniesofthedefencewitnesses
andthestatementofaccusedpersonsu/s313CrPConthispoint
standfalsified.Thisfalsityofdefenceisanadditionalreasonto
support the prosecution case and it serves not only a
corroborationtotheprosecutioncasebutalsofillsupthemissing
chain of circumstances against all the accused namely Rajeev
Gupta,ShyamSinghandBholanath. Irefertothejudgmentof
SupremeCourtSwapanPatrav.StateofWestBengal,(1999)
9SCC242,SupremeCourtsaidthatinacaseofcircumstantial
evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that
explanation is found not to be true then the same offers an
additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the
chain. Thesameprinciplehasbeenfollowedandreiteratedin
StateofMaharashtravs.Suresh,(2001)1SCC471,whereit
hasbeensaidthatafalseanswerofferedbytheaccusedwhenhis
attentionwasdrawntoacircumstance,rendersthatcircumstance
capableofinculpatinghim. SupremeCourthasfurtherheldin
this case that in such a situation false answer can also be
countedasprovidingamissinglinkforcompletingthechain.
Theaforesaidprinciplehasbeenagainfollowedandreiteratedin
Kuldeep Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (5)
(SC)161.
InAnthonyD'Souzavs.StateofKarnataka2003CRI.L.J.
434,ThefullBenchofSupremeCourtconsistingofHon'bleR.C.
Lahoti,BrijeshKumarandH.K.Sema,JJ.opinedinpara15as
under:
Bynowitiswellestablishedprincipleoflawthatina
caseofcircumstantialevidencewhereanaccusedoffersfalse
answerinhisexaminationunder313againsttheestablished
facts that can be counted as providing a missing link for
completingthechain.
I may point out that DW9 Sudhir Sareen examined by

RajeevGuptaareverycategoricalinstatingthatthecarwasnot
washed. None of these witnesses and none of these accused
persons have explained as to how the floor on which the
vehicleisparked isseenwetinvideography. Instatementu/s
313 CrPC accused RajeevGupta hasstated that false evidence
was fabricated against them at the instance of senior police
officials. SimilarlyaccusedShyamSinghandBholaNathhave
testified that police had involved them due to vested interest.
However,noreasonhasbeenshownastowhypolicewoulddo
so.
Ld defence counsels have drawn my attention to the

contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. It is argued
thatintheirstatementsu/s161CrPC,witnessJagdishPandey,
InspectorVimleshYadavtheSHOLodhiColonyandSIKailash
ChandtheinitialInvestigatingOfficerhavenowherestatedthat
they had seen accused Rajeev Gupta, Shyam Singh and Bhola
Nathwashingthecar.ItisarguedbyLddefencecounselsthat
supplementarystatementU/S161CrPCofthesewitnesseswere
recordedon30.3.99ieafterabout3monthsfromtheincident.
LddefencecounselshavereferredtothecaselawofDelhiHigh
courtthatstatementU/S161CrPCrecordedafteralongtimeis
unworthyofcredence.
Iamoftheopinionthatamechanicalviewcannotbetaken
thatifasupplementarystatementisrecordedsubsequently,the
samebecomesunworthyofcredence.Infactthecourtisnotto
seewhether statementU/S161CrPCisunworthyofcredence,
ratherthecourtistoconsiderastowhetherthetestimonymade
byawitnessinthecourtistrustworthyorunworthyofcredence.
Inassessingthetestimonyofwitnessincourt,thesupplementary
statementrecordedU/S161CrPCofofawitnessaftera long
time,isonlyonefactortobetakeninconsideration. However,
thecourtwouldnotthrowawaythelegallyadmissibleevidence
oftruthfulwitnessonlyonaccountofthisreason. Imaypoint
outthatinAIR1986Supremecourt990,thesupremeCourt
didnotdiscardthestatementofmaineyewitnessonlyonthe
groundthatthesamewasrecordedbythepoliceafter56days
oftheincident.
Infacteachcasehastobe judgedinthe backdropofits

ownpeculiarfeatures.Ihavealreadystatedthatthisparticular
caseisoneofthosecaseswhichhighlightsthedegradationwhich
has crept into the criminal justice system. Conduct of the
investigatingagencyisalsoundershadowofdoubt. Acareful
perusaloftheentireinvestigationandthecasediariesaswellas
the judicial record, it would become abundantly clear that
although initially the police acted with a great responsiveness
whichisexpectedfromalawenforcingagency.Butverysoona
greatdealofreluctanceonthepartoftheinvestigatingofficer
startsappearinginthecase. Though fromoutward,itwasa
showofstrengthanddetermination butthesilenttermiteshad
startedeatingthewoodfrominside.Theaccusedpersonshave
examinedoneKaranGauravasDW5.IncrossexaminationbyLd
SpecialPublicProsecutor,headmittedthathewasasonofa
former Commissioner of Police. He testified that he had
reached50GolfLinksatabout8.30or9am.Doesitindicateas
towhypolicesuddenlydevelopedcoldfeetandindulgedintoa
most inefficient investigation almost at every step I am
recountingthefactsandplacingthesameonrecord.
1. On 11.1.99 SI Kailash
Chand moved an application
before a Metropolitan
Magistrate. The application is
EXPW58/F. In this application,
SI Kailash Chand has written
two facts. First, accused Rajeev
Gupta, Bhola Nath and Shyam
Singh washed the vehicle and
secondlydestroyedtheevidenceie
blood etc. and changed the
rear number plate of the
vehicle BMW so that the
vehicle cannot be identified.
But this was only an outward
show that they won't spare
anyonebutontheotherhandthe
Investigating Officer SI Kailash
Chanddidnotrecordanythingto
thiseffectinthestatementunder
Section161CrPC.Ipointoutto
the statement of SHO Vimlesh
Yadav that she had stated this
fact to the Investigating Officer

buthedidnotrecordit.
2. A notice U/s 133 Motor

Vehicle Act was given to Sonali
Nanda who stated astowho
was driving the vehicle at the
time when offence took place .
This Kalendra is EXPW60/5
issued by SI Ulhas Giri.
However, Ms Sonali Nanda
refusedtoacceptthisnoticeand
evendeclinedtoplaceserviceon
the notice. Thereafter on
11.1.99 again,theInvestigating
Officer gave a notice U/S 133
Motor Vehicle Act but still
SonaliNandarefusedtotakethe
saidnotice.However,noaction
wastaken against her. It is
pertinenttonotethatforrefusing
to cooperate with the
investigation,shecouldhavebeen
prosecuted under various
provisionsofIndianPenalCode.
However,theInvestigatingofficer
didnotproceedinthisdirection.
This is interesting to note that
thechargesheetwaspreparedby
SHOon25.3.99andtillthenno
action had been taken against
her. On the objection of the

prosecution, one Kalendra U/S
5/181 and 133/179 Motor
Vehicle Act which is punishable
only with minor fine was
prepared on 2.4.99. Further
more, instead of prosecuting the
said kalendra separately in the
court of Magistrate, it was
annexed with the main challan
withoutreferringSoniaNandaas
an accused in the main charge
sheet.Tomymind,thiswasan
offence where she shouldhave
beenprosecutedU/S179Indian
Penal Code which provide
imprisonmentuptosixmonthsif
aperson refusestoanswer any
questiontoapublicservantwho
is authorized to ask such
question.
3. It would be interesting to
note what kind of charge sheet
hasbeenfiledinthepresentcase
whichisbeingmonitoredbythe
senior officers of the police
department. The charge sheet
which was prepared on 25.3.99
doesnotevenmentionastowhat
act was done by Bhola Nath,
ShyamSinghandRajeevGupta.
The charge sheet simply writes
that there is sufficient material
against them U/s 201/34 IPC.
It is interesting to note that in
the charge sheet there is no
mentionofmissingnumberplate
of the back side of BMW car,
although it has been mentioned
in the application for police
remandEx.PW58/F.Ithasbeen
specifically mentioned that
accused Rajeev Gupta, Bhola
Nath and Shyam Singh washed
the vehicle and destroyed the
evidence i.e. blood etc. and the
changedtherearnumberplate
ofvehicleBMWsothatvehicle
cannotbeidentified. Butwhen
thechargesheetwasfiled,there
wasnomentionofchangingthe
rear number plate. In evidence
also, onlyone fact hascome on
recordthattherearnumberplate
was missing. I was constrained
toreadthecasediariesandfrom
thecasediary dated10.1.99,it
isrevealedthatinfactoneofthe
accused had taken out the back
sidenumberplateofthecarand
thereafterrefixeditattheproper
slot in such a manner that the

backsideofthenumberplateis
visibletoalookerandthesideon
which the number is written is
concealedbecausethesaidsideis
nowtouchingthebodyofthecar.
Thisevidencebeingapartofcase
diarycannotbereadinevidence
but it does not need great
imaginationtounderstandasto
why this piece of evidence was
notputforthbytheinvestigation
and the prosecution. I may
stressherethatthistypeofstate
ofaffairinthepolicedepartment
has become quite common
wherever influential persons are
arraignedasanaccused. Ihave
nodoubtaboutitthatthisisnot
simplyanegligencebutdeliberate
tactics.
4. Thisreluctanceofthepolice
officials further appears even
during trial. One application
was moved during trial by the
prosecutiontodirecttheaccused
SanjeevNandatogivehisblood
sample.Ileftthisaspecttobe
investigated by the police and
directed them to exercise their
powers U/S 173 (8) CrPC. In

recent amendment, police have
gotthepowertouse reasonable
forceagainstanaccusedtotake
his blood sample. Police simply
sent a notice to accused Sanjeev
Nanda who refused to give the
blood sample. At that time the
prosecution insisted that court
should use its own powers and
directaccusedSanjeevNandato
givethebloodsample.Itakethis
opportunitytoexplainastowhy,
despite being empowered to
direct,theaccusedSanjeevNanda
to give blood sample, I did not
passanyspecificorderratherit
left to the police to use its own
powers.Iwasjustcheckingthe
enthusiasm or reluctance of the
policeininvestigatingthecase.It
isadifferentmatterthatfearing
an adverse inference might not
be made, accused himself
furnishedthebloodgroupreport.
Thereweremanyotherpointswhichareofminornature
whichIamnotinclinedtodiscussforsakeofbrevity.Butafter
perusal of the entire judicial file and police file, I am of the
consideredopinionthatthisissimplynotacaseofhobnobbing
betweendefencecounselandprosecutionbutalsoatsomestage
inthebackground,theInvestigatingOfficerhasbeeninfluenced
whobeingdeliberatelyindulgedinsuchperfunctoryinvestigation
thatitcausesseriousprejudicetotheprosecution.Inbackground
of these circumstances , the evidence on record has to be
assessed. The principle of weighing the evidence on golden
scalescannotbeappliedherebecausethistrial isanexample
where the entire criminal justice and entire trial has been
hijackedbytherichandinfluentialaccusedpersons.
Oncethisscenarioisemerging,takingtechnicalviewofthe
factsandcircumstancesisboundtoleadtomiscarriageofjustice.
However,thereappearstobesomerayofhope.Althoughwhile
delivering Judgment, the courts normally do not refer to the
internal departmental notings and communication between
Prosecuting Branch and the Investigating Officers. However, I
wouldnotrefrainmyselftopointoutthatoneadditionalPublic
Prosecutor checked the whole challan and raised serious
objectionsintheinvestigation. Itappearsthathesawthrough
thegame. Iamnotreproducingthoseobjections. Sufficeitto
saythatpinchedbytheseobjections,thepolicehadnooptionbut
to prepare a Kalendra against Sonali Nanda (though it was
concealedinthemainchallan).Policewasconstrainedtorecord
furtherstatementofthepoliceofficialswhohad seenaccused
RajeevGupta,ShyamSinghandBholaNathwashingthecar.
Despitethisfactthatfurtherinvestigationwasconductedbythe
police, no fresh charge sheet was prepared, rather the new
statementswereattachedwiththechallanandthechargesheet
wasfiledinthecourt.Itiscommontoseethatinvestigationsare
faulty. ItisalsocommontoseethattheinvestigatingOfficeris
inefficient. It is also frequently seen that the Investigating
Officerscommitblunders. Butalltheseareforgivablebecause
thereisnoobliquemotive.Howeverthiswasahighprofilecase
andtherecordshowsthatthesamewasbeingmonitoredbythe
top police officers. Therefore, such level of inefficiency is not
incidental,rathertomymind,thesameappearstobedeliberate.
In such state of affair, the court has only one option ie to
abandonthenarrowandwindinglaneoftechnicalitiesandtravel
ontheroyalroadofjustice.
Ld defence counsels have place heavy reliance on the

wirelessmessages. Itisarguedbydefencecounselsthatinthe
wirelessmessage, itisnotstatedbyinspectorJagdishPandey
thathehadseenthevehiclebeingwashed. Itis arguedthat
evenifitispresumedthatthevehiclewasactuallywashed,it
appears from the wireless messages that the police officials
reachedwhenithadalreadybeenwashedandthereforeitcannot
besaidastowhethertheyactuallyhadseentheaccusedpersons
washingthesaidvehicle. ItisarguedbyLddefencecounsels
thatRajeevGuptawassleepingupto9amandatleasthecould
nothavewashedthevehicle.ItisfurtherarguedbyLddefence
counsels thatitisnotpossiblethatRajeevGuptaisoneofthe
richestpersonsofDelhiwouldhimselfwashthevehiclewhenhe
hastwoservants.
Before considering these submissions, I reproduce the

relevant wireless messages. These wireless messages were
produced by the prosecution on the application of Ld defence
counselsduringtrialandItreatedthesemessagestobeadmitted
documents.Thefirstmessagewasflashedfrom6amto6.10
amwhichisreproducedasunder:
6.00E1T27charaadmimajrubheinjinhegarimedicallekar
gaihei,dokihalatgambhirhei,dohoshmein
hein
JoT27Sahabkesaathmokejarahethetorastese
Hidieselgirtahuagayatha,jisperhamnepeechhakarte
Huei50no.golflinkeperpahunchejowahanper
GaariaccidentalBMWkalerangthiIsmeinparklane
Kastickerlagahuatha,jokothimeinkharimili
Jiskebaremeindarwajanahinkholachowkidarse
PoochhtachhkigaijiskiittlaE1waE2ko
Digai
Second relevant message is flashed by T27, Inspector

JagdishPandeyat7.35amwhichisreproducedasunder:
Date10.1.99Time7.35CRDDno.1305
50no.GolfLinkperT27Accidential
spotLodhihotelsegaarigirehueitelke
spotkapeechhakartehuepahunchajahanek
accidentmeininvolvedgaaritajadhulihiwatirpalse
dhakihuipaaigaiwakuchhaurgariabhikharihei
Thirdrelevantmessageisflashedat7.45amwhichisas
under:
IssamayS3waSHOLodhiColonymokeper
Maiystaffaagayejinhegarikebaremeinavgat
Karayagayajogaariaccidentkarkebhaggaithi
JisgaarikopakarkarSHOLodhiRoadkehawale
Kigai
These messages have been heavily relied upon by Ld

defence counsels. While interpreting these wireless messages,
onethingmustbekeptinmind.Theprocessisthataneventis
seenbyaPCRpoliceofficialandthen orallyconveyedonthe
wireless.Thepolicecontrolroomrecordsthesameverbatimin
theirofficialform/register.Whenanoffencetakesplace,thereis
flurriedactivitiesonpartofthepoliceofficial.Thereisalwaysa
possibilityofslipoftongueonpartofthepersongivingmessage.
Thereispossibilitythatsuchperson sendingthemessagemay
leaveoutmaterialdetails.Thereareallthepossibilitiesthatthe
person who is recording the message in his diary/register or
formmaymakemistakeinwritingthemessage.Thissituationis
amplyborneoutfromthefactthatinonemessagebyInspector
JagdishPandey,itisstatedthataneyewitnesshadtoldhimthat
a red colour contessa had committed the offence. This
messagewasconveyedfromthePCRT27at5.23am.Therefore
accuracyofthesemessagesshouldnotbeexpected.However,I
wouldliketoreadthesemessagesasitis. Thefirstfacttobe
consideredisthatthefirstmessagewhichwassentfrom50Golf
LinksbyPCRT27isatabout6am.Inthismessageitisstated
that at50GolfLinks,oneaccidental BMWcarof black
colourhavingastickerofParklanewasfound parked but
darwajawasnotopened.Inquirywasmadefromchowkidar.
ReadingofthisDDentrywouldshowthat at6.10amthecar
was not covered with tarpaulin. It also shows that the
information about the vehicle and the Park Lane sticker was
received by the police officials from the chowkidar/ security
guardofthathouse.Thenextentryat7.35amfrom T27.The
message flashed by Inspector Jagdish Pandey. It gives the
statusofthevehicleat7.35am.Thismessageonlymeansthat
the vehicle has been washed and has been covered with
tarpaulin.
LddefencecounselshavepointedoutthatSHOhasreached
at7.50amwhenthevehiclehadalreadybeenwashedandthat
how she could have seen the accused persons washing the
vehicle. Lddefencecounselshavepointedouttothemessage
flashedat7.50aminwhichitisstatedthatSHOLodhiColony
hasreachedatthespot. Iamoftheopinion that Lddefence
counselsarereadingthismessageat7.50amoutofcontext.In
fact SHOLodhiColonyhadreachedthespotbefore7.50am.
Thisfacthasbeenmentionedinthemessageflashedat7.45am
inwhichitisstatedthatSHOLodhiColonyhasreachedthespot
withstaffandthevehiclehadbeenplacedunderhercustody.
FromthereadingofthesetwoDDentries,itwouldbeclear
thatat6.10am,therewasnotarpaulinonBMWcar,whereasat
7.35 am the car was seen with a tarpaulin. In the message
flashed at 7.35 am by Inspector Jagdish Pandey, it has been
mentionedthatthevehiclehasbeenwashed.Ifthevehiclewas
coveredwithtarpaulinat7.35am,howInspectorJagdishPandey
reachedtoaconclusionthatithasrecentlybeenwashed(Taja
Dhuli Hui) It has only one meaning that inspector Jagdish
Pandeyhadseenthatvehiclewasbeingwashedandat7.35am
hefoundthatthesamehasalsobeencoveredwithatarpaulin.
In view of these circumstances I am convinced that

InspectorJagdishPandeyaswellas SHO VimleshYadavhad
seenthevehicle beingwashed. Thereisnoreasonastowhy
policeofficialswould falselyarresttheseaccusedpersons. As
perthedefence,policehadevenapprehendedMrSareenbutlet
himoff.Ifthepolicewassobiasedduetodeathofafewpolice
officials,whyitshouldletgosomepersons.Iamoftheopinion
thattillapprehensionofalltheaccusedpersons,theinvestigation
wasgoingon righttrack andisfullycredible. Theblemish
startedappearingintheinvestigationthereafterduetoobvious
reasons.
ThereforeIamconvincedthataccusedRajeevGupta,Bhola
NathandShyamSinghhadreasonstobelievethatanoffencehas
beencommitted. Otherwisetherewasnoreasonthattheback
sidenumberplateoftheBMWcarshouldnotvisible.Theblood
and the flesh parts on the body of the vehicle were material
piecesofevidencetoprovethathumanbeingshavebeenkilled.
Otherwisetherewasnoreasonastowhythiscarshouldhave
been washed by the accused persons. The defence witness
namelyKaranGaurav,KaranSinghandSudhir Sareenarenot
reliable being interested witnesses and due to the reason that
testimonyofDW7KaranSinghandDW9SudhirSareenstands
unworthy of credence on account of their false testimony that
there was no washing of the car. Testimony of DW5 Gaurav
Karan is unworthy of reliance because it is unbelievable that
whenpolicehasreachedat50GolfLinks,thepoliceofficialsor
theservantsofRajeevGuptawouldlethimsleepinginhisroom.
Itwouldbestrangethatpoliceandservantsdidnotwakehimup
till this witness goes up stairs and wakes him up. In these
circumstances,Iamoftheopinionthat prosecutionhasproved
its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rajeev Gupta,
ShyamSinghandBholaNathwerehavingreasontobelievethat
offencehasbeencommittedinvolvingBMWcarandbywashing
thecarduetowhichthebloodonthecarNo. M312LYPwas
made to disappear, though some blood and some flesh still
remainedonsomepartsofthecar.
Prosecutionhasnotbeenabletoleadanyevidenceagainst
accused Manik Kapur except his one finger print on the outer
body of BMW car. This finger print does not prove anything.
Therefore,IacquitaccusedManikKapur.
In view of this discussions, accused Sanjeev Nanda is

convictedU/S304(II)IPC.
Accused Rajeev Gupta, Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh are

herebyconvictedU/s201(II)IPC.
Announcedinopencourt
On2.9.08 VINODKUMAR
ADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE
NEWDELHI
THECOURTOFSH.VINODKUMAR
ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE,NEWDELHI
SessionsCaseNo.25/99
FIRNo.17/99
PSLodhiColony
StateVs 1. SanjeevNanda
S/oSh.SureshNanda
R/oD108DefenceColony,NewDelhi.
2. BholaNath
S/oSh.MotiLal
R/o103,SunderNagar,NewDelhi.
3. ShyamSinghRana
S/oSh.NandanSinghRana
4. RajeevGupta
S/oSh.VedParkashGupta
ORDERONSENTENCE
5.9.2008
Present: Sh.RajivMohan,SpecialPublicProsecutorwith
Sh.NaveenKumar,APPforState.
Convict Sanjeev Nanda from J.C. with counsel Sh. Ramesh

Gupta, adv., Prem Kumar adv., Sh. Sandeep Kapur adv., and Sh.
MehulMilindadv.
ConvictRajeevGuptaonbailwithcounselSh.S.S.GandhiLd.
Senioradv.AlongwithSh.MohitMathuradv.
ConvictBholaNathandShyamSinghonbailwithcounselSh.
G.P.Tharejaadv.,Sh.SunilMaganadv.,andSh.J.P.Singhadv.
Sh.RajivMohanLd.PublicProsecutorhasprayedformaximum
sentencetotheconvictsonfollowinggrounds:
1. Theoffenceisofveryseriousnatureandinthejudgement,it
hasbeenopinedthattheoffencealmosttouchesthebordersof
Section300(4)IPCandthesuchoffencesareagravethreatto
thepubliconroads.
2. Aleniencyviewinfatalaccidentcaseshasbeendeprecatedby
the Supreme Court and the present case is a case of higher
gravitythanafatalaccidentcase.
3. That the convict had indulged in winning over the witnesses
andhavethwartedthecourseofjustice.
OntheotherhandSh.RameshGupta,adv.forconvictSanjeev
Nandahasprayedforleniencywhilesentencingtheconvictswhich
areasfollows:
1. Theconvictwasonly19yearsofageatthetimeofoffence.
2. Thatthiscourthasobservedinthejudgementthattheconvict
hadnodesiretokillthosepersons.
3. ThefamilyofconvictshavealreadypaidRs.10lacstothefamily
ofeachdeceasedandRs.5lacstotheinjuredvideorderofthe
HighCourtafteraveryshortperiodfromtheoffence.
4. ThatconvictSanjeevNandahasnopreviousconviction.
5. The jail record of the convict during the custody period had
been exemplary. Ld. Counsel has filed two affidavit of two
NGOs and has submitted that during the custody period the
convicthadbeenactivelyinvolvedinconstructiveandcreative
work and this convict is an asset to the society and further
detentioninjailwouldbegreatlosstothesocietyaswellasto
thefamilyoftheconvict.
6. Sh.RameshGupta,adv.forconvictSanjeevNandahasraiseda
strong objection to the submissions of Additional Public
Prosecutor that convict is indulged in winning over the
witnesses. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that convict
Sanjeev Nanda had no opportunity during the entire trial to

answerthischargeandthereforeifanyattempthasbeenmade
towinoverthewitnesses,convictSanjeevNandacannotbeheld
liableforit.
7. Sh.RameshGupta,adv.hasarguedthatunderSection304(II)
IPC,thecourthaswidediscretionstartingfromimpositionof
fineonlyanditmayrangeuptoinflictingofsentenceuptoten
years.Sh.RameshGuptaadv.arguesthatinviewofthetotality
of the circumstances the convict may be released on
imprisonment which he has already undergone during trial
whichcomeouttobeaboutninemonths.
Sh. Prem Kumar,adv. for convict Sanjeev Nanda has added

followingpoints:
1. Thatthiscourthasobservedinthejudgementthattheconvictis
agrandsonofaillustriousfigurenamelyAdmiralS.M.Nanda,
whohadrenderedinvaluableservicetothisNation.
2. Thathehadsufferedenoughonaccountofoverzealouspolice
who booked him under Section 304(1) IPC unjustly and
thereafterfacedpersecutionbyahostilemedia.
Ihavegiventhoughtfulconsiderationtoallthesubmissionsof
Ld. Defence Counsels. The determination of sentence is quite a
difficult job. The best course to determine the quantum of
punishmentistoseetheprecedenceofasimilarcase.Tomymind
thenearestcasewhichhascometothenoticeofthiscourtisAlister
Anthony Pareira's case decided by Bombay High Court. The said
casewasalsoacaseofdrunkendriving.Inthesaidcasethecarhad
runoversevenpersonssleepingonthefootpathandkilledthem.In
thesaidcasePareirawasalsoayoungmanandhealsotriedtoflee
away from the spot. The blood of Pareira was found to contain
0.112% W/V Ethyl alcohol. In the said case Bombay High Court
awardedapunishmentforthreeyearsandafineinthesumofRs.5
lacs.IfthepresentcaseiscomparedwithPareira'scase,itwouldbe
foundthatthecaseofSanjeevNandaismuchmoregraverthanthe
saidcase. ConvictSanjeevNandawasfoundwithpresenceofEthyl
alcoholtotheextentof0.115%inhisblood.Whereasthesaidcase
wasonlowerendofSection304(II)IPC,whereasinthiscase,Ihave
writtenthattheoffenceisalmosttouchingtheborderofSection300
(4) IPC. In Pareira's case people were sleeping on the foot path,
whereasinthiscasepeoplewerestandingontheroadwhichmeans
thattheconvictwasinapositiontoclearlyseethemontheroad.
Pareira'scarstoppedatthespot,whereasSanjeevNandacheckedthe
car under which the injured were entangled and were crying and
thereafteragaindroveawaythesaidcar. Thereforeitisprayedby
Ld.APPthatcircumstancesrequirethesentenceofhigherend.
Now I would see as to whether the factors pointed out by

convict Sanjeev Nanda can be taken as mitigating fact. First
argumentisthattheconvictwasonly19yearsofageatthetimeof
offence. Normally the young age of a convict at the time of
commission of offence is considered as a factor towards granting
leniencyinsentencebutincaseof SanjeevNandaitwouldnotbe
applicable. As per statement under Section 313 CrPC dated
19.11.2007,convictSanjeevNandahasansweredtoquestionno.41
andno.44 bystatingthat duringthosedaysheusedtostudyin
USAandhehadadrivinglicenseissuedfromBostonUSA. This
showsthatconvictSanjeevNandawasalreadyexposedtoaWestern
culturewheredrunkendrivingistabooandifsomeoneindulgesinit
the consequences are very harsh. A person who had got driving
licensefromUSAcanbeconsideredtobehavingahigherdegreeof
knowledgeofconsequencesofdrunkendriving.Thereforeonaccount
ofhisyoungage,nobenefitcanbegiventohim.
IdonotfindanyforceintheargumentsofLd.DefenceCounsels
thatconvictSanjeevNandawasunjustlyimplicatedunderSection304
(1)IPC. Infactitisnotuncommonthatthedriversofthemotor
vehiclesspeciallywithcriminalbackgroundhitthepoliceofficialson
checking duty deliberately and have even killed them. Therefore

whenthepolicefoundafewpoliceofficerslyingdeadatthespot,the
police had just reasons to register a case for intentionally causing
deaths.
The grant of handsome compensation to the families of the

victimsafteraveryshortdurationfromtheoffence,howeverleans
heavilyinfavourofconvictSanjeevNanda. Ifeelthatthoughthe
victimshavebeencompensatedbuttheprimarilyaccountabilityofthe
convict Sanjeev Nanda is towards the society. The question is
whetheramanontheroadissafeandwhetherthedrunkendrivers
wouldkeeponcommittingsuchoffences. Thisaccountabilitytothe
society can only be suitably answered if a substantial jail term is
providedtohim,thoughitwouldnotbeappropriatetoawardhima
lightersentence.
The prosecution has argued that the way the criminal justice
systemhasbeenpollutedbytheaccused,averydeterrentpunishment
should be awarded to the convicts. Sh. Ramesh Gupta, adv. has
arguedthatinfactthewitnesseslikeSunilKulkarnishouldalsobe
punished. I am of the opinion that Sunil Kulkarni himself had
approachedthepoliceandstatedthathehadseentheincident. He
repeatedhiscaseunderSection164CrPC. Histestimonyhasbeen
heldtobetruthfulbeforethiscourt.Howeveritistruehehadfiled
falseaffidavitsbeforeHon'bleHighCourtatvariousstages,butthis
courtcannotpunishhimforperjurywhichhehascommittedinother
courts. So far as the hostile witness Manoj Malik is concerned he
himselfisavictimoftheoffenceandperhapshecouldnotwithstand
the pressures of influential persons. Therefore I do not intend to
initiateanyproceedingsunderSection340CrPCagainstanyofthe
witnesses. However at the same time I would agree with the
submissions of Ld. APP. Till now the courts had been taking into
considerationonlythosefactorswhichwereattendingtheoffenceat
thetimeofitscommissionandtheantecedentsoftheconvict. But
nowatimehascomethatanewprincipleofsentencinghastobe
evolved.Wherethereisclearproofthattheoffenderhadindulgedin
winningoverthewitnesses,ahigherquantumofpunishmenttosuch
offenderistheneedoftheday.
Balancingallthesefactors,Iawardrigorousimprisonmentfor
fiveyears toconvict SanjeevNanda. BenefitunderSection428
CrPCisalsogiventohim.
Sh.S.S.Gandhi,Ld.Senioradv.andSh.MohitMathur,adv.
havearguedthattheconvictisnowquiteagedandifheissenttojail,
not only his family would suffer but also his numerous employees
would have suffer financial losses. It is further argued that the
offence of convict is of minor nature and therefore the convict be
releasedonprobationofgoodbehaviourorwithfine.
I have considered the arguments of Ld. Counsels. Normally

theirpleawouldhaveweighedbeforethiscourtquiteheavilybutthe
questionofbacksidenumberplateofthecarasmentionedbymein
the judgement makes the intention of the convict very very
conspicuous. In fact it shows a shrewed and a calculative mind.
Therefore the washing of blood from the car should be seen in
backgroundoftheabovestatedfactaswellasmyobservationsinthe
judgement that this convict had also been able to manipulate the
investigation. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to take a
lenientview.
I therefore sentence the convict Rajeev Gupta to rigorous

imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/
underSection201IPC.Indefaultofpaymentoffinetheconvictshall
undergosimpleimprisonmentforonemonth.
Sh. G. P. Thareja, adv. for convict Shyam Singh and Bhola

NatharguedthatboththeconvictsaretheservantsofconvictRajeev
Guptaandtheydidnothavethemoralcouragetostandupagainst
thewishesoftheiremployer. Furthermorenoneofthemwasina
positiontoinfluenceinvestigationortowinoverthewitnesses.
Fortheaforesaidreasonsmentionedbymewhileconsidering
thequantumofsentenceofconvictRajeevGupta,Iamnotinclinedto
releasetheseconvictsonprobationofgoodbehaviour.HoweverIam
oftheopinionthatthesubmissionsofSh.G.P.Thareja,adv.arequite
weighty.
ThereforeconvictShyamSinghandBholaNathdeservealesser
punishment.AccordinglyIsentenceconvictShyamSinghandBhola
Nathtorigorousimprisonmentforsixmonthsandafineinthesum
of Rs.100/each. Indefaultofpaymentoffine,eachconvictshall
undergosimpleimprisonmentforsevendays.
Itakethisopportunitytosayafewwordsmore.Nowwhenthe
heat of the trial will cool and dust raised by it settle down, it is
necessarythatallthestakeholdershavingstakeinthecriminaljustice
system fairly take a dispassionate view of the things which have
happenedinthe presenttrial andalsofrequentlyseeninanormal
criminal trial. Onone handLd.Public Prosecutor haspointed out
towardstheconductofthepolice,prosecutionandthedefence. On
the other hand Ld. Defence Counsels have vehemently criticized
electronicmedia. Itmustnotbeforgottenthatblamegamewould
notleadusanywhereanditwouldbeawastageoftimeandenergy.
Blameisapowerfulweaponbutintrospectionistherealremedy
havingtherapeuticquality. IntheentirejudgementIhaverefrained
fromtouchingthedetailsofvariousincidents,whichhaveabearing
todiscreditthejusticedeliverysystem.ThoughIamconvincedthat
institutional sabotage of the system has been carried out, still a
restrainedwasobservedbythiscourtlestthecanofwormsisopened
again. ThereforeIreferredtoaparticularfactonlywhereitwasof
utmost necessity. Better not blame anyone, rather take it as an
opportunityforexaminingoursystem.Iamremindedofasayingof
Kahlil Gibran, who states in his book The Prophet that when a
string breaks, the weaver does not blame the string, rather he
examinestheentireloom.
All the advocates and senior advocatesappearing in this case

havehighstandingandhavecontributedalotinthefieldoflaw.But
thebestisyettocomeoutfromthem.Theirgreatestcontribution
(whichIbelievewoulddefinitelybeforthcoming)wouldbethatthey
risetotheoccasionandexaminetheentirecriminaljusticesystemas
wellasalltheissuesincludingtheissuesconcerningmedia. Imay
pointoutthatforustheruleoflawisanarticleoffaithandnota
commodityofconvenience. Ifwedonotkeepourfaithinthelofty
principleofruleoflaw,ourfuturewouldbelikewhatisbeingfaced
byafewneighbouringcountriesthesedays.WiththeseobservationsI
close my judgement, while summing up all the sentences again as
under:
1. The convict Sanjeev Nanda is sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for five years with benefit under Section 428
CrPC.
2. The convict Rajeev Gupta is sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of
Rs.10,000/ underSection 201IPC. Indefaultofpaymentof
fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month.
3. The convicts ShyamSingh and BholaNath are sentenced to
rigorousimprisonmentforsixmonthsandafineinthesumof
Rs.100/each.Indefaultofpaymentoffine,eachconvictshall
undergosimpleimprisonmentforsevendays.
Filebeconsignedtorecordroom.
Announcedintheopen
courton5.9.2008.
(VINODKUMAR)
AdditionalSessionsJudge
PatialaHouseCourts
NewDelhi

BMW Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BMW Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCNo.25/99,FIRNo.17/991StateVsSanjeevNandaetc.

This is a trial in which entire criminal justice system

The prosecution alleges that one BMW car number

SIKailashChand (PW58) wrotearukkainwhichhehad

ProsecutionallegesthatwhenSI Jagdish Pandey(PW13)

Alltheaccusedweremedicallyexamined. Asper the

12.1.1999,doctorMadhulikaSharma (PW16), SeniorScientific

On 10.1.99 SI Kailash Chand prepared a site plan

Mechanical inspection of the vehicle was got conducted

On 15.1.99, Sunil Kulkarni (examined as court witness)

On these accusations, charges were framed on 3.8.99

Another charge under Section 201/34 IPC was framed

Another charge under Section 304(I)/308/35 IPC was

Another charge under Section 304(I)/308/34 IPC was

In order to prove its case prosecution examined as

PW15Sh.S.C.Gupta isthe DirectorandIncharge

PW29Sh.Nagesh Kumar Wadera was posted as a

on the said date. He identified the dead body of Ct. Rajan

Prosecution witness Sunil Kulkarni was given up by the

STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 313 CRPC OF

In his defence evidence accused Sanjeev Nanda

working as Chokidar at B16, Greater Kailash, the residence of

Since the witness Sunil Kulkarni has been put to

veryexpensivevehicle. Thereisnoallegationthat thisvehicle

Sanjeev Nanda Presence of injury on his lip and presence of

evidence. Therefore as soon as gate was opened and Rajeev

I have also mentioned earlier this court is examining

name of accused Sanjeev Nanda and his address should have

witnesses. Every case in the

The main stress of the final arguments had been as to

On the other hand, Ld APP has drawn my attention to

Ihaveperused Pareira's caseofBombayHighCourtandI

In (1976) 1 SCC 889, the Supreme Court of India has

Ld. Defence Counselhas pointed outthe word wilfully

It must be kept in mind that Section 300 of IPC defines

homicide would amount to murder. This fourth situation is

A perusal of the above stated portion of the judgement

am drawing heavily from an article with the title

The first question to be determined is what kind of

This is defined U/S 300 (4) IPC and the knowledge

Wheredeath iscaused byanactwhich the offender

Where the act has dangerous consequences like causing

I would appreciate as to what type of knowledge the

As translated in English, the scene of crime has been

vehicle, his right leg was

Despite his being won over, he has supported the prosecution

HOW DO WE MEASURE THE DEGREE OF GROSS

In AIR 2005 SC 3180 where the Supreme Court was

In (1976) 1SCC889, theaccusedusedtodriveatruck

while considering the circumstances did not take it in account

Aperusal ofallthese authoritiescitedbyLd.Defence

Thereis anotherprovision inaMotorVehicleActwhich

where a person is driving a vehicle in drunken state and also

Both the questions are very relevant to the emerging

Infact asperthelawasstandstoday,ifadrunken driver

persons standing on the road, the vehicle took a right turn in

the offence on the highest boundary of Section 304 (II) IPC.

Ld defencecounselshave drawn my attention to the fact

It is true that Sunil Kulkarni possesses a very peculiar

The prosecution has proved a register from the Shiva

Now, this court is to see as to whether he had seen the

initially doubtful and therefore police produced this witness

The witness was further put to cross examination by Sh.