New Delhi, Sept. 2: Sanjeev Nanda, the grandson of a former navy chief, was today found guilty of crushing to death six persons with his BMW while driving drunk nine years ago, after a trial that the judge said was “hijacked by the rich and influential” accused.

His forehead marked with vermilion from a trip to the temple on way to court, Nanda, 30, was impassive as the judge handed the verdict that could see him spending up to 10 years in jail.

“If a drunken person drives a vehicle in a highly rash or dangerous manner and thereby kills a human being… such gross recklessness should fall within the purview of Section 300 (murder),” additional sessions judge Vinod Kumar said in a packed courtroom.

He found Nanda guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (part ii) — part of the same chapter as 300 — and ordered that the Wharton graduate, who was out on bail, be taken into custody.

Grandmother Gayatri, who was in court with Nanda’s parents and sister Sonali, walked up to console him as soon as the judgment was read. The family wept as he was taken away to Tihar jail in a garrisoned van.

The quantum of sentence will be debated tomorrow before a jail term is announced, bringing to a close a nine-year trial that has been closely followed as a test of the fairness of the judicial system.

“The entire criminal justice system should sit up to find effective ways and means to tackle a situation where wealthy and highly-placed persons are able to thwart the entire course of justice and later claim benefit of the doubt as a matter of right,” the judge said today.

Sanjeev Nanda’s grandmother Gayatri and father Suresh at court. Picture by Prem Singh

“Such trials posed greater questions as to what was the meaning of fair trial and how should the court proceed when the witnesses are being won over and the trial is being hijacked by the high and mighty.”

Nanda had sought the benefit of doubt since key witnesses had turned hostile claiming that a truck, not a BMW, had run over the six. The judge dismissed the appeal, saying: “This was an example where the entire trial has been hijacked by the rich and influential accused persons.”

The defence, which had argued that Nanda could at best be convicted under Section 304A for causing death by a rash and negligent act, will wait for the sentence before appealing. Section 304A carries a maximum two-year jail term, as compared to 10 years under 304.

“If a rich man is held guilty, it is a good thing. But I still believe he will escape with a lighter punishment,” said Phula Devi, the widow of constable Peru Lal, one of the six men mowed down early on January 10, 1999.

Peru Lal, another Delhi police constable Ram Raj, CRPF constable Rajan Kumar and three others, Mehdi Hasan, Nasir and Ghulam, were killed after the BMW crashed into a police checkpost in south Delhi.

Manik Kapoor, Nanda’s friend who was in the car with him when he sped away ignoring the cries of some victims allegedly entangled in the wheels, was acquitted.

Three others — businessman Rajeev Gupta, the father of Nanda’s friend Sidhartha, and his two employees Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh — were convicted of destruction of evidence because they had washed bloodstains and removed pieces of victims’ flesh from the car.

The police had found the BMW being washed at Gupta’s house hours after the incident, following the oil leaks left by the damaged car.

Sanjeev’s father Suresh Nanda, a wealthy arms dealer and son of Admiral (retired) S.M. Nanda, said he would comment only after going through the ruling. Suresh is alleged to be involved in several murky defence deals such as the Barak missile deal.

But Nanda’s counsel Ramesh Gupta snarled at the media: “Now, you might be feeling elated as the acquittal of Nanda would have meant travesty of justice.”

The court relied on the testimony of controversial witness Sunil Kulkarni, who had drawn criticism for his flip-flop during the long trial.

A TV sting operation last year had caught defence lawyer R.K. Anand and prosecutor I.U. Khan collaborating to bribe Kulkarni, the only witness who had stuck to the version that it was a BMW that crushed the victims.

“It must be kept in mind that he was facing a public prosecutor who was acting in collusion with the defence counsel. Therefore, the witness was clearly under great mental pressure at the time of recording of his evidence… contradictions and improvement… appearing in his testimony should be seen in that light,” the judge said.

Corroborating his testimony with the police videotape shot on the day of the incident, the court said: “He is telling the same story which is being spoken by the scene of crime.”