The much-publicised trial in the BMW hit-and-run case is nearing its end with judgment being reserved for September 2. The case dates back to January 10, 1999 when Sanjeev Nanda, the grandson of former Admiral S.M. Nanda, who was allegedly driving a BMW and was returning from a party in Gurgaon with his friends Siddharth Gupta and Manik Kapoor had rammed into a petrol pump near Lodhi Road. The crash resulted in the death of six people —Rajan Kumar, a CRPF constable, Ram Raj, a home guard, Peru Lal, Nasir, Gulab and Mehdi Hasan. Metronow brings you the various twists in the case over the last nine years.
Nanda’s unconditional “assistance package”
A good 20 days after the incident, Sanjeev Nanda’s family offered an unconditional “assistance package” to the families of the victims. Ignoring the fact that the case was in court, the family went ahead and paid the families compensation. They gave Rs. 10 lakh to each family. The compensation was given at a time when Sanjeev Nanda was still in police custody.
The Delhi Police sought the government’s permission to appoint city lawyer I.U. Khan as special public prosecutor in the case to match
the powerful set of lawyers representing Sanjeev Nanda which included R.K. Anand, D.C. Mathur and Ramesh Gupta. For eight years, the prosecution failed to get any evidence against the accused with Kulkarni as the only witness. All the other witnesses turned hostile. After recording Kulkarni’s statement in 2007, a sting operation conducted by a private television channel caught Anand, the defence counsel for Nanda and prosecutor Khan in collusion. The sting showed both attorneys trying to bribe Kulkarni into changing his testimony that implicated Sanjeev Nanda in the case. Khan was soon dropped from the case and Rajeev Mohan was
recommended as the new special public prosecutor.
Sunil Laxman Kulkarni: key witness & his story
Initially Sunil Kulkarni, a Mumbai-based businessman was dropped from the list of witnesses because of contradictory statements. Kulkarni later emerged as key witness in the case. He came up as a witness about six days after the incident.
His statement was recorded by the police under section 164 CrPC after which he stood by his words. However, when the trial in the case began and statement of three witnesses had been recorded, Kulkarni moved an application in the court of Additional Session Judge P.K. Bhasin in 1999 stating that he needed protection as the police was harassing him.
He also claimed in the application that the initial statement given by him was given under police duress. Kulkarni had claimed that the police were adamant on nailing Nanda as an accused. Soon after, the prosecution dropped him as a witness, predicting that he would turn hostile.
In 2007, however, prosecution once again recalled him. Kulkarni said in his statement that, “I did not see Sanjeev Nanda driving the vehicle.” However, he identified Nanda
as the man who was one of the three present on the night of the incident. In the court, too, he identified Nanda in the court as one of the men he saw that night. Kulkarni added, “I also heard someone say, ‘Lets rush Sanj, Sidh’”.
He also testified in court that three persons, who were inside the car. But he failed to identify who was driving the car.
What Khan failed to bring to the notice of the court
Evidence that prosecutor I.U. Khan failed to bring to court’s notice were brought out by Rajiv Mohan. This included key scientific evidence. Around nine finger prints were collected from the car, out of which two were collected from the steering wheel. The police had collected samples of blood stains found on the steering wheel and on Nanda’s shirt— seized after the incident—were of the same blood group.
Nanda, whose blood group —B+, was collected by the police during the investigation. The blood sample obtained from Nanda, however, was not analysed and thus got putrefied. They have again asked for Nanda’s blood sample. However the blood on the steering wheel is now putrified.
The wait is almost over, after almost a decade finally the judgment in the BMW case will be pronounced on September 2. Let’s hope justice delayed for so long is not justice denied.
Our question to you is: Do you think after so many twists, justice will finally be served in the BMW case?
Nanda’s unconditional “assistance package”
A good 20 days after the incident, Sanjeev Nanda’s family offered an unconditional “assistance package” to the families of the victims. Ignoring the fact that the case was in court, the family went ahead and paid the families compensation. They gave Rs. 10 lakh to each family. The compensation was given at a time when Sanjeev Nanda was still in police custody.
The Delhi Police sought the government’s permission to appoint city lawyer I.U. Khan as special public prosecutor in the case to match
the powerful set of lawyers representing Sanjeev Nanda which included R.K. Anand, D.C. Mathur and Ramesh Gupta. For eight years, the prosecution failed to get any evidence against the accused with Kulkarni as the only witness. All the other witnesses turned hostile. After recording Kulkarni’s statement in 2007, a sting operation conducted by a private television channel caught Anand, the defence counsel for Nanda and prosecutor Khan in collusion. The sting showed both attorneys trying to bribe Kulkarni into changing his testimony that implicated Sanjeev Nanda in the case. Khan was soon dropped from the case and Rajeev Mohan was
recommended as the new special public prosecutor.
Sunil Laxman Kulkarni: key witness & his story
Initially Sunil Kulkarni, a Mumbai-based businessman was dropped from the list of witnesses because of contradictory statements. Kulkarni later emerged as key witness in the case. He came up as a witness about six days after the incident.
His statement was recorded by the police under section 164 CrPC after which he stood by his words. However, when the trial in the case began and statement of three witnesses had been recorded, Kulkarni moved an application in the court of Additional Session Judge P.K. Bhasin in 1999 stating that he needed protection as the police was harassing him.
He also claimed in the application that the initial statement given by him was given under police duress. Kulkarni had claimed that the police were adamant on nailing Nanda as an accused. Soon after, the prosecution dropped him as a witness, predicting that he would turn hostile.
In 2007, however, prosecution once again recalled him. Kulkarni said in his statement that, “I did not see Sanjeev Nanda driving the vehicle.” However, he identified Nanda
as the man who was one of the three present on the night of the incident. In the court, too, he identified Nanda in the court as one of the men he saw that night. Kulkarni added, “I also heard someone say, ‘Lets rush Sanj, Sidh’”.
He also testified in court that three persons, who were inside the car. But he failed to identify who was driving the car.
What Khan failed to bring to the notice of the court
Evidence that prosecutor I.U. Khan failed to bring to court’s notice were brought out by Rajiv Mohan. This included key scientific evidence. Around nine finger prints were collected from the car, out of which two were collected from the steering wheel. The police had collected samples of blood stains found on the steering wheel and on Nanda’s shirt— seized after the incident—were of the same blood group.
Nanda, whose blood group —B+, was collected by the police during the investigation. The blood sample obtained from Nanda, however, was not analysed and thus got putrefied. They have again asked for Nanda’s blood sample. However the blood on the steering wheel is now putrified.
The wait is almost over, after almost a decade finally the judgment in the BMW case will be pronounced on September 2. Let’s hope justice delayed for so long is not justice denied.
Our question to you is: Do you think after so many twists, justice will finally be served in the BMW case?
0 comments:
Post a Comment