Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230

Introduction

This case is popularly known as the Jessica Lal murder case,  a case that had a deep impact in the history of legal battles in India as it witnessed some drastic circumstances and issues and highly grabbed the attention of the people and media. A simple refusal to serve alcohol at a bar turned into a drastic event claiming the life of a young model. It is often said the VVIPs  or the high-profile people escape the clutches of law using their wealth and resources. The loopholes of the judicial system are used by them to manipulate the system for their advantage. But this case proved that the voice of the common people and media in a positive way can be so strong that it can have a huge impact on the judiciary as well.

Facts of the Case

• A ‘Thursday Party’ was going on at a restaurant called “Qutub Colonnade” on 29.04.1999. Liquor was being served by the Models at that party and Jessica Lal (victim) was one of them.
• There was a closed area called “Tamarind Cafe” at the said restaurant where appellant-accused, Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma along with his friends came at about 2.00 a.m. They asked for two drinks but the waiter did not serve them liquor as the party was over.
• The victim, Jessica Lal, tried to make him understand that the party was over and there was no liquor available with them.
• The appellant-accused took out a .22 pistol and fired a shot on Jessica Lal with a bullet in the head.
• Jessica Lal was rushed to the hospital but on 30.04.1999 she was declared dead.
• The nine accused were charged under Sections-302/202/1208/212 IPC and under Section-27 of the Arms Act.
• The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the nine accused including the appellant-Manu Sharma.
• Challenging the acquittal, the prosecution filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.
• The Delhi High Court reversed the decision of the trial court. It convicted and sentenced the appellants on 20.12.2006.
• Appellant-accused Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma was given life sentence for murder and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and also four years of sentence under Section-27 of the Arms Act with.
• Orders were also passed against other accused. The other two appellants were convicted and sentenced to four years of imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- each with default stipulation.
• Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the said order of the High Court.
• Other two accused also filed appeals separately. All the appeals were heard together.

Facts in Issue before the Supreme Court

(a) Whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the three accused?

(b) Whether the trial court is justified in acquitting all the accused in respect of charges leveled against them?

(c) Whether the impugned order of the High Court imposing punishment when the trial court acquitted all the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them is sustainable?

Court Proceeding: Its Reasoning and decision-

1. Regarding proceeding in Trial Court:

• It was stated by the Supreme court that the Appellate Court is competent to reverse the decision of the Trial Court depending on the materials placed in circumstances where a Trial Court ignores material documents like dying declaration, report of Ballistic Experts etc. It relied on the following cases on this point : Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1997) 7 SCC 677, Ghurey D Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450, etc.

1. Weapon of incident :

• Highlighting the evidence of the weapon of incident it was stated by the court that prosecution had established that the appellant-accused was the holder of a .22″ bore Pistol. The court stated this based on the testimony of a witness, recovery of a mutilated .22″ lead from the skull of the deceased, discovery of two empties of .22″ make with mark ‘C’ at the spot, a .22″ live cartridge with mark ‘C’ in the Tata Safari of the appellant-accused found abandoned at Noida.
• A licensed holder of a pistol has a duty for safe custody to prevent its misuse. The Court drew adverse inference qua non-explanation of Pistol as the appellant-accused, Manu Sharma could not properly explain its whereabouts. Also, if the pistol went missing it was the duty of said Manu Sharma to immediately lodge a complaint regarding it. But there was no such complaint or report of the said pistol. Thus, an adverse inference could be drawn against the accused, Manu Sharma in such circumstances.

1. Conduct of the appellant-accused

• It is pertinent to mention that no theft report was lodged regarding the said Tata Safari. The appellant-accused got the Tata Safari removed from the spot of absconding.
• The appellant-accused also refused the process of Test Identification Parade (TIP) without having any basis.
• He also denied his presence at the spot of the incident.
• Witness testimony proved that accused Sidharth Vashisht alias Manu Sharma fled away from the scene of occurrence and had surrendered on 06.05.1999 after extensive searches were made.
• The Court stated that close association of the perpetrators of crime subsequent to the criminal act is a very important piece of evidence. Hence, the close association of the appellant-accused Sidharth Vashisht alias Manu Sharma with the other accused via Phone call and subsequent destruction of important evidence thereafter served as a notable piece of circumstantial evidence. Dissenting with the Trial Court’s view, the Supreme Court gave weightage to the evidence of phone calls being relevant and admissible as a piece of evidence.

1. Effect of Adverse Inferences Against the Accused

• Section -313 of Cr.P.C empowers the court to examine the accused by putting such questions to him as the Court considers necessary.
• In such cases if an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court can draw adverse inference qua him. Such an adverse inference shall provide additional circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused. The court relied on the cases below regarding this:- Peresadi vs. State of U.P., (1957) Crl.L.J. 328, Anthony D’Souza vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 1 SCC 259, etc.

1. Regarding Media Trial

• Fair trial can be ensured only by having an unbiased opinion about the accused. Any kind of preconceived notion regarding the guilt of an accused can hamper fair judicial proceedings. Emphasising this viewpoint the court opined regarding the role of media in the present case.
• The Court stated that media trial during pendency of investigation opposes the basic rule of law granted to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• It is essential to presume innocence of the accused until proven guilty.
• The court further stated that sub judice matters must be subjected to check and hence the right to freedom of expression must be carefully exercised by the media.
• The principles of natural justice includes the right of defence of accused and non-interference in matters sub judice.
• The apex court cautioned the media regarding unnecessary controversy affecting the judicial proceedings.

Final Verdict

The final verdict in the Jessica Lal murder case was delivered on April 19, 2010 by a two judge bench headed by Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Swatanter Kumar. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of life term of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma.

Subsequent Scenario 

• In Jessica Lal’s case a number of witnesses had turned hostile. The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and initiated proceedings of perjury against 19 witnesses who turned hostile. The trial of model-actor Shayan Munshi and ballistics expert Prem Sagar Minocha for perjury was significant as it caused the accused to be freed. ¹
• The actor Shayan Munshi turning hostile was unexpected as he was the complainant in the case and had got the FIR lodged. Shockingly in court, he stated that he did not understand Hindi and hence does not  know about the matters written in the FIR. ¹
• The Delhi High Court provided a directive to the state government to frame a witness protection programme because of perjury in high-profile criminal cases. ²
• 17 hostile witnesses were later discharged from the perjury matter.¹
• In 2016 the Supreme Court quashed perjury proceedings initiated against the ballistic expert by the Delhi High Court. ³
• In the year 2018, Sabrina Lall surprisingly stated that she has no objection to the accused Manu Sharma being released. She wrote a letter to the welfare office of Delhi’s Tihar Jail stating that she has no objection to the release of the accused Manu Sharma as he had already spent 15 years in jail. ⁴
• Time and again, appeals for his release were made before the said committee, but were rejected. ⁵
• The lawyer of the convict had approached the Delhi High Court seeking his release in November 2019. He pleaded, stating that 23 years in jail had already been spent and the convict had a record of good conduct in prison but the Sentence Review Board (SRB) unfairly denied his client’s release.⁵
• Later, the Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal allowed the early release of Manu Sharma on the recommendation of Sentence Review Board (SRB). ⁵

References

1. Jessica Lal Murder Case: Shayan Munshi, another witness to face perjury trial. www.ndtv.com. (2013, May 22). https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jessica-lal-murder-case-shayan-munshi-another-witness-to-face-perjury-trial-523019
2. (2013, April 27). Hostile witness. Deccan Herald.https://www.deccanherald.com/content/335000/hostile-witness.html
3. Jessica Lall Case: Supreme Court clears ballistic expert of perjury charge. The Economic Times. (2018, January 10). https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/jessica-lall-case-supreme-court-clears-ballistic-expert-of-perjury-charge/articleshow/50517399.cms
4. Trivedi, S. (2018, April 22). Jessica Lal’s sister forgives Killer, won’t object to release. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/jessica-lals-sister-forgives-killer-wont-object-to-release/article23638592.ece
5. 23, A. (2020, September 28). Delhi LG allows Jessica Lal Killer Manu Sharma to walk free. India Legal.https://indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/delhi-lg-allows-jessica-lal-killer-manu-sharma-to-walk-free/