IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judge: Kailash Gambhir, J.
Sanjeev Nanda – Appellants
Vs.
The State – Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 767 and 807/2008
[Alongwith Crl. Appeal No. 871/2008]
Decided On: 20.07.2009
Kailash Gambhir, J.
The miracle is not to fly in air or to travel to the moon, but to walk on the earth", says a Chinese proverb.
1. The increase in vehicular traffic alongwith the population of Delhi has grown much faster since the time Maruti Company has flooded the market with their brand of cars for the middle class of the society. Although the capital of the country is dominated by the middle and lower class, but the presence of rich and affluent is no less visible when one looks at the roads of Delhi to find large number of high class luxurious cars, including the Mercedes and BMWs. The traditional mode of travelling by tangas, bicycles, rickshaws, two wheelers is coming to gradual extinct except in the interiors of some localities.
2. Except for a few hours between midnight to dawn, one cannot see even a patch of earth but vehicles and vehicles either running or stranded in traffic jams on Delhi roads. This ever increasing vehicular explosion in traffic is due to the rapid increase of human population primarily due to continuous migration of people in search of their livelihood from adjoining states and from far flung areas. In this unmanageable crowd, what we have lost is humanity, morals, our age old rich culture, tradition, ethos and path of truthfulness and righteousness as shown to us by saints and scriptures. Of all the maladies afflicting India, the malady of inner decay reigns supreme. There is a weakening of our moral fibre and ethical values. Corruption, red tapism, callousness, casualness and crumbling moralities dominate our public life instead of much needed culture of care, compassion, empathy, and catholicity.
3. Drunken driving, insensitivity and apathy of the Government for public safety on roads; poor, faulty and ill equipped police investigation; growing interference of media in criminal trials; media hype; hostile and dishonest witnesses; falling standards of legal profession, filthy use of money power by rich and mighty; unholy nexus between defence counsel and State appointed Special Public Prosecutors are some of the issues that cropped up in this infamous case known as the BMW case.
Brief Facts
4. In this background, it would be relevant to briefly put forth the facts of the case before delving upon the contentions of counsel for the parties, which are as under:
5. At about 4:00 am on the cold wintry morning of 10/1/1999, the accused Sanjeev Nanda in an inebriated state, without an Indian driving licence while driving a brand new BMW car bearing registration No. M 312 LYP caused an accident at the Lodhi Road in which 6 persons, including three police officers were trampled to death and one person was injured. After causing the accident, the accused Sanjeev Nanda fled away from the accident spot and parked the accidental car at 50 Golf Links at the residence of his friend Siddharth Gupta. The accused has been convicted under Section 304(II) IPC and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment by the trial court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accused Siddharth Gupta was discharged by this Court and accused Manik Kapoor was acquitted by the trial court. Accused Rajiv Gupta, Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh Rana have been convicted by the trial court under Section 201(II) IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of offence committed by accused. Aggrieved with the said orders of conviction & sentence dated 2/9/2008 passed by the learned trial judge, the appellant Sanjeev Nanda preferred appeal bearing Crl. A. No. 807/2008; Rajiv Gupta preferred appeal bearing Crl. A. No. 767/2008; and Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh Rana preferred appeal bearing Crl. A. No. 871/2008.
6. First, I will deal with the Crl. A. No. 807/2008 and then I will deal with Crl. A. Nos. 767/2008 and 871/2008.
Crl. A. No. 807/2008 Arguments of the appellant
7. At the outset of his arguments, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate with a view to narrow down the controversy very fairly admitted to the factum of accident and t
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. AIR 1992 SC 1701
J. Vasudevan v. T.R. Dhananjaya 1995 (6) SCC 249
Lillian Me Pharson v. Oran Leo Me Pharson AIR 1936 P.C. 246
Swaransingh v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2017
Ramasinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1994) 2 SCC 685
Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220
Baldev Singh v. State of MP (2003)9 SCC 45
State of Punjab v. Gurdip Singh (1996) 7 SCC 163
Rajbir Singh Dalai (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lai University (2008) 9 SCC 284
Shri Chand Batra v. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 639
Sunder Lai v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 28: 1954 Cri LJ 257
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157 : 1982 Cri LJ 1243
Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 : 2007 Crl.J. 1451
Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 9 SCC 71
Bhalachandra Waman Pathe v. The State of Maharashtra 1968 ACJ 38
Maragatham @ Lakshmi (1962) 2 MLJ 286
Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1954 SC 271
Jayprakash v. State (Delhi Administration) 1991 (2) SCC 32
Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala (2007) 14 SCC 269
Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72
Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (1974) 3 SCC 774
R. Sarala v. T. S. Velu and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1731
Ram Kumar Pande v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1026
Col Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1979 (4) SCC 11
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984) 4 SCC 116
Sarwah Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637
Trimbale v. State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 39
Tori Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 399
Jagdish Narain and Anr. v. State of AIR 1996 SC 3136
Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 680
Surendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1979 SC 1048
State of Punjab v. Naib Din AIR 2001 SC 3955
S.R. Mulani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 829
State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981)2 SCC 752
Sidharath v. State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 4352
Mukund Lai v. UOI and Anr. 1989 (Supp(l) SCC 622 : AIR 1989 SC 144
Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 911
Uday Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1998)7 SCC 478
State of Maharashtra v. Jugminder Lal AIR 1966 SC 940
Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 : 1987 CAR 335 (SC)
State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar (2002) 3 SCC 738
Datar Singh v. The State of Punjab
Maruti Rama Naik v. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. v. Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab
Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra 1971 (3) SCC 930
Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi 1973 (2) SCC 203
Mahadeo Hari Lokre v. State of Maharashtra 1972 (4) SCC 758
State of Karnataka v. Satish 1998 (8) SCC 493
State of Gujarat v. Haiderali Kalubhai (1976) 1 SCC 889
State of M.P. v. Dharkole AIR 2005 SC 44
Saidu Mohd. v. State 2006 CrLJ 413 SC
Sanjay Bhan v. State AIR 2003 SC 785
Naresh Kumar v. State (1995) 57 DLT 399
Sri Chand Batra v. State AIR 1974 SC 639
Ram Bali v. State AIR 2004 SC 2329
Kurban Hussain v. State 1965 (2) Cr.LJ. 555 : AIR 1965 Ker 130
Balwan v. State 42 (1990) DLT 211
Damodar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC 4414
Satyajit Banerjee v. State of Bengal 2005 (1) SCC 115
Keisam Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur 1985 (3) SCC 676
Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P. AIR 2008 SC 1943
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.