National

Key witness in BMW case a “peculiar personality”

NEW DELHI: It was not just the prosecution and the defence that assailed the credibility of Sunil Kulkarni — a controversial eyewitness in the high-profile BMW hit-and-run case — at different stages, even Additional District and Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar in his judgment described him as “a very peculiar personality.”

“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. But the truth is that such persons are not uncommon. They behave in a very strange manner and are very sharp,” read the 87-page judgment.

But at the same time, Judge Vinod Kumar had a word of caution against throwing the evidence of such witnesses at the first instance.

“Such persons may be truthful witnesses to an event. If they are an eyewitness of an offence, there is nothing in law to disbelieve them. However, the courts would be at guard and extra cautious in weighing their evidence. In fact, such a witness has to pass through a close scrutiny by the court.”

Dispelling doubts about the credibility of Sunil as an eyewitness, the judgment said he was the only witness who testified before the court that the BMW car was reversed after the accident and his statement was well corroborated by the videography of the crime scene.

Explaining the rationale behind ruling out Section 304 (I) in the present case, Judge Vinod Kumar said: “I am of the opinion from the circumstances attending the event that accused Sanjeev Nanda could not have desired to cause death of these persons. As discussed, intention has two prominent features i.e. knowledge of the consequence and desire for consequence. As soon as the element of desire for the consequence goes, the intention requisite for Section 304(I) IPC is ruled out and the court is left with the only option to attribute knowledge to the accused.”

Even last ditch efforts of lawyer Prem Kumar to defend his client by referring to a Law Commission document, claiming that cases of “drunken driving resulting in death” could not be pursued under harsher penal provisions, failed to find favour with the court. Rejecting the arguments, Judge Vinod Kumar said: “Deaths caused by drunken drivers do fall within the purview of Section 304 (II) of the IPC even as per the existing law.”

The Judge observed that a “motor vehicle being driven by a drunk driver is virtually a death machine on the road.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu