Case Summary: STATE NCT OF DELHI vs. SIDDHARTH VASHISH (MANU SHARMA)  

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justice P. Sathasivam, Justice Swatanter Kumar
•  Date of Judgment: 19 April 2010
•  Relevant Provisions / Statutes:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 302 – Punishment for Murder; Section 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence / giving false information

Arms Act, 1959: Section 27 – Punishment for using arms illegally

INTRODUCTION

The murder case of Jessica Lal is a highly publicised case. This situation has consistently puzzled me regarding the level of cruelty someone can display by randomly shooting an innocent girl who just declined to offer him the drink he wanted. It led us to think that justice exists regardless of the identity of the accused. It led us to acknowledge that justice may be postponed, but ultimately, it will prevail. The media had a significant impact in this situation. Jessica’s situation marked the start of an impartial media that initiated a nationwide push for justice.

A coin has two sides, and similarly, the media also has two aspects. The media often amplifies situations, and today it focuses on TRP and maximising profits by presenting news with added sensationalism. However, this notable murder case demonstrated its value and reinforced our faith in ourselves and our judicial system. Remember those times when we cherished media that restored our trust in our system.

BRIEF FACTS

1. A party took place at Qutub Colonnade in the restaurant called Once upon a time, also known as Tamarind café, during the night of April 29th to 30th, 1999.
2. The bartenders responsible were Jessica Lal (deceased) and Shyan Munshi (PW-2). About 2 am, Manu and his buddies showed up and requested beverages.
3. The bartender refused to provide alcohol since the event was over, and Jessica and Malini also attempted to explain that they lacked any liquor.
4. When Jessica declined to serve the alcohol, he drew a .22 calibre P. Beretta pistol and shot one round into the ceiling and another at Jessica Lal, causing her to faint.
5. Beena Ramani, who was at the crime scene, asked Manu why he shot Jessica and requested him to hand over his gun. However, Manu and his companions escaped from the location of the crime.
6. Jessica Lal was brought to Apollo Hospital, where she was pronounced dead in the early hours of 30th April 1999.
7. An FIR was filed at the Mehrauli Police Station at 4 am. An autopsy was performed on the same day of death at AIIMS at approximately 11:30 am. Around 2 am on 30th April and 1st May 1999, the police raided the appellant’s farmhouse and confiscated a photograph of the appellant.
8. The black Tata Safari was located by the Noida Police station (Sector 24) and was confiscated the following day. Tony Gill and Alok Khanna were arrested on May 5, 1999, at 2:30 am, and Manu’s involvement was corroborated by the statement.
9. A charge sheet was filed against 10 individuals on 3rd August 1999. On 23rd November 2000, Manu Sharma was charged under Sections 302, 201 r/w 120B IPC, while the accused Amardeep Singh Gill faced Section 120 r/w 201 IPC.
10. Accused Harvinder Chopra, Vikas Gill, and Yograj Singh were charged under Section 120 r/w 201 IPC, while Vikas Yadav, Tony Gill, and Alok Khanna faced charges under Section 120B r/w 201 IPC. While Shyam was detained under Section 212 of the IPC
11. More than 100 witnesses and 2 courts were called by the prosecution during the trial in May 2001.
12. The prosecution lodged an appeal in the High Court contesting the Additional Sessions Judge’s order of acquittal for all nine defendants, including Manu, on 21st February 2006.
13. On December 20, 2006, the High Court found the appellants guilty and sentenced them. The three appellants submitted individual appeals to the Supreme Court contesting the decision made by the earlier court. The appeals were considered simultaneously and were constrained by this unified ruling.

ISSUES

1. Has the prosecution established its case against the three defendants beyond any reasonable doubt?
2. Is the trial court’s decision to acquit the defendants justifiable?
3. Is the High Court’s directive enforcing a penalty against the trial court’s decision, justifiable?

ARGUMENTS

Argument of the Prosecution:

The prosecution claimed that Manu Sharma shot Jessica Lal after she denied him a drink. The original acquittal resulted from tampered witnesses and a failed investigation. The prosecution based its case on forensic evidence, testimonies from witnesses (some of whom later stepped forward due to public outrage), and circumstantial evidence indicating Manu Sharma was at the scene and had discharged the firearm.

Argument from the Defence:

The defence argued that Manu Sharma was not the gunman and that there was no strong forensic evidence directly connecting him to the homicide. They contended that the case relied on circumstantial evidence, and the testimonies were dubious, particularly because multiple witnesses had become hostile.

JUDGEMENT

The legal appeals were recorded under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the final judgment and order dated 18/20.12.2006 issued by the High Court of Delhi, as well as in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006, in which the High Court reversed the acquittal order dated 21.02.2006 from the Additional Sessions Judges Delhi in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001. It sentenced Siddhartha Vashisht (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2007) under Section 302 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, imposing a life imprisonment penalty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, alongside a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the victim’s family, with additional detention of two years in case of fine default. He was also sentenced to two years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, carrying a fine of Rs. 2,000, and further detention of three months in case of non-payment.

He was also sentenced to serve imprisonment for an extended duration for the violation under Section 201/120B IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 2000 and, in case of non-payment, to serve additional imprisonment for three months.

RATIO DECIDENDI 

The whole case relied on circumstantial evidence shaped by the actual circumstances of the situation. Out of spite, Siddhartha Vashisht and Manu Sharma shot Jessica, and in an effort to defend himself, he tried to destroy all the evidence against him, leading to him being labelled a ruthless killer. Due to significant media and public pressure, the indictment was announced, and the high court-initiated processes towards the higher courts, with daily hearings lasting over 25 days. He was sentenced to life in prison on December 20, 2006. In the past two years, Manu Sharma was transferred to an open prison due to “good behaviour” and was allowed to exit the prison at 8 am and come back by 6 pm. On 6 June 2020, the Delhi LG released Manu Sharma from Tihar prison due to his good behaviour.

Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal approved the premature arrival of Manu Sharma, who is serving a life sentence for a case, according to an official directive.

The Delhi Sentence Review Board (SRB) recommended releasing 43-year-old Manu Sharma, who had spent 17 years of his life incarcerated, and had been released from prison, yet remained under supervision as part of initiatives implemented by prisons nationwide to prevent overcrowding during the COVID-19 crisis.

Nevertheless, after being held for an extended period of 11 months and 24 days, he has become a better person.