'Sanjeev Nanda was drunk at the time of accident' | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 21, 2017-Friday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

'Sanjeev Nanda was drunk at the time of accident'

In the 9-year-old BMW hit-and-run case, the Prosecution tells a Delhi court that Sanjeev Nanda was an inebriated state at the time of accident, in which 6 persons were killed in 1999.

delhi Updated: Aug 25, 2008 20:01 IST

In the nine-year-old BMW hit-and-run case, the Prosecution on Monday told a Delhi court that prime accused Sanjeev Nanda was an inebriated state at the time of accident, in which six persons including three policemen were killed in New Delhi in 1999.

"Nanda, whose BAC (blood alcohol content) level was 115 mg/dl on the afternoon of day of incident, was in inebriated condition," public prosecutor Rajeev Mohan while advancing additional submissions told Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar.

Referring to experts' opinion on the issue, the prosecutor said "the mental faculty of a person, whose BAC level is over 100 mg/dl, cannot judge the distance and become disoriented and, our case falls in that category."

In a fresh attempt to prove the guilt of Nanda in the case, in which the defence has concluded advancing final arguments on August 20, he said the accused had the knowledge that his action was likely to cause death.

The prosecution has charged Nanda and co-accused Manik Kapoor under harsher IPC penal section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which prescribes life imprisonment as maximum punishment.

On the contrary, the defence has alleged that at best a case of simple accident under IPC section 304A (causing death by negligence), prescribing a maximum two years jail term, was made out against the accused as he had no intention, whatsoever, to kill.

Six persons were killed in the accident involving the BMW car on January 10, 1999 in Lodhi Colony area in New Delhi.

The prosecutor also refuted the contention of other co-accused -- Rajeev Gupta, Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh-- that they did not cause destruction of evidence as they were not aware of the incident.