The Misuse of Money and Power – A Tale of the 1999 Delhi BMW Hit and Run Case

The morning of 10 January 1999 will remain as one of the most infamously famous mornings in the history of Delhi. On this day Sanjeev Nanda Grandson of Naval Chief and son of famous arms dealer Suresh Nanda was involved in a high profile hit and run case which is known as the 1999 Delhi Hit and Run case.

Hit and run cases are one of the most prevalent road accidents in India. According to a report by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport² research wing in 2019 road accidents in India kill almost 1.5 lakh people annually which accounts for almost 11 percent of accident-related deaths in the world. Section 161(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act says that a “hit and run motor accident” means an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the identity whereof cannot be ascertained despite reasonable efforts for the purpose. Section 279, 338 and 304A are imposed in a hit and run incidents.

• Section 279-Rash driving or riding on a public way.-Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

• Section 338-Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.-Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

• Section 304A-Causing death by negligence.-Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Facts of the case-

At 4:50 am in the early hours of 10.01.1999, a black BMW car driven by Sanjeev Nanda hit 7 persons killing 6 of them at Lodhi Road, New Delhi. It was alleged that when he hit the people few of them flew in the air and hit the bonnet and a few were stuck under the car and were dragged on to a point where the car hit the central verge. It is also alleged that Sanjeev Nanda saw beneath the car but one of the co-accused named Manik Kapoor asked him to rush, leaving the injured shouting and crying for help. SI Jagdish Pandey followed the oil trail of the car and traced it to Siddharth Gupta’s residence at Golf Links where his father Rajeev Gupta with his servants Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath washed the car and destroyed the evidence. On 11 January 1999 Sanjeev Nanda and his friends were arrested and the following charges were framed :

• Section 201/34 IPC was framed against accused Sanjeev Nanda, Manik Kapur
• Section 201/34 IPC was framed against accused Rajeev Gupta, Shyam Singh Rana and Bhola Nath for tampering with the evidence by washing the car.
• Section 304(I)/308/35 IPC was framed against accused Sidharth Gupta. Which was discharged by the Hon’ble High Court later on.
• Section 304(I)/308/34 IPC was framed against accused Sanjeev Nanda and Manik Kapur for causing the deaths of Rajan Kumar, Peru Lal, Ram Raj, Mehandi Hasan, Nasir and Gulab and for attempting to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Manoj Malik.

On 14 January 1999 Sunil Kulkarni, a key witness to the incident recorded his statement which was discharged by the prosecution questioning his credibility but was brought back as a witness on a plea by the prosecution where he identified the accused Sanjeev Nanda. Manoj Malik the survivor testified that the incident took place by a truck rather than a car but the broken number plate and other damaged parts helped prove that the incident took place by a car not by a truck as testified by him. The bloodstains on the steering wheel matched with the blood group of Sanjeev Nanda which were also found on his jersey further proving that the car was being driven by Sanjeev Nanda. It is important to note that many witnesses turned hostile in this case which led to Sanjeev Nanda being relieved on bail in October 1999.

The 2008 Judgement

In 2008 the trial court found Sanjeev Nanda guilty citing Alister Anthony Pareira’s case³ decided by the Bombay High Court.

• Convict Sanjeev Nanda was sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304(II) IPC with benefit under Section 428 Crpc
• Rajeev Gupta was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs 10000 under Section 201 of IPC.
• Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs 100 each under Section 201 of IPC.

The 2009 Appeal and Judgement

In 2009 Sanjeev Nanda filed an appeal in the High Court of Delhi challenging the decision of the trial court.

THE APPEAL

• He challenged that right to a fair trial where the prosecution failed to prove the case and the learned judge didn’t appreciate the facts, misapplied the law and showed prejudice against the rich and mighty.
• A fair trial also includes a speedy trial which is a right granted under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Section 309 of Crpc. He appealed that the trial could have been completed within a period of 4 to 5 years but it took around 9 years which ruined his career educationally as well as professionally.
• The prosecution failed to prove its case through reliable witnesses and all the three witnesses were of questionable character and credit.
• Many facts involved were applied on the basis of circumstantial and scientific pieces of evidence which was avoidation of principles made down by the Supreme Court Jagdish Chander Vs. State of Delhi 1973⁴ and State of Karnataka Vs. Satish (1998)⁵.
• The accused appealed that he was wrongly tried and found guilty for an offence under Section 304 (II) IPC.

The Judgement

• The court acknowledged the fact that the appellant had to undergo a lot of trauma and agony while facing the trial for 9 years but it was all on his own wrongdoings.
• The court was also aware of the Rs. 65 lakh compensation that he paid to the family of the victims but believed it to be an action-driven by personal motives of getting a bail rather than compassion towards them.
• They pointed out the fact that every possible effort was done to destroy the evidence and manipulate the witnesses to escape justice through money
• It was held that the accused does not deserve any kind of leniency in his sentence and sentenced Sanjeev Nanda to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304A IPC.
• Since the conviction against Sanjeev Nanda has been converted from 304 (II), 304A so naturally Rajeev Gupta, Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath will be guilty under Section 201 (III) of IPC.
• Rajeev Gupta was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs 10,000.
• Shyam Singh and Bhola Nath were sentenced to 6 months of rigorous imprisonment
• Proceedings under Section 340 Crpc were initiated against the witness Sunil Kulkarni for deliberately giving false evidence

The 2012 Appeal and Judgement

In 2012 an appeal was filed by Delhi Police in the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking to alter his conviction from 304A to 304 (II) IPC and increased his sentence. They appealed that the accused didn’t have an Indian driving license and his negligence along with intoxication is sufficient to prove ‘knowledge’ which is mentioned as an ingredient under section 304 (II) IPC thus he deserves to be held guilty under section 304 (II) IPC.

The respondent replied that the incident took place almost 13 years back and after facing a trial for almost 9 years he also underwent 2 years of imprisonment as sentenced by the Hon’ble High Court. He claimed that over such a long period he has learned his lesson and started to rehabilitate himself into society. He also contended that he also paid compensation to the victims out of compassion and it would be humiliating for him to be sent to jail again.

The supreme court after hearing both sides decided to quash the judgement by the high court and restore the trial court judgement but they felt that the sentence given by the high court was appropriate and the accused does not have to return to jail. In addition to this, they ordered the accused to pay Rs 50 Lakhs to the Union of India which will be used to assist victims of a motor vehicle accident where the vehicle owner-driver etc can not be traced also sentenced him to 2 years of community service.

Conclusion

Whether justice was served or not will always be a matter of debate but one thing is for sure that the Sanjeev Nanda case will go down as another infamous case where people with deep pockets played with the loopholes of the law which brings us to an even bigger debate about strengthening the law and institutions of justice.

The need to amend section 304A has been raised several times in the courts and the parliament the supreme court favored amending this section in 2007 and then again in 2019 a bill to amend this was also tabled in the parliament in 2007, 2015, 2016 and the latest being in 2019 but remains to be a long-awaited reality.