SiddarthVashish
@Manu Sharma v. State NCT Delhi
Court- Supreme
Court
Case no.- criminal appeal no. 179/2007
with 157/3007 & 224/2007
Appellate- Siddharthvashish@manu Sharma
Resp- state NCT Delhi
Introduction
Circumstantial
evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face,
prove a fact in issue but
gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence
requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support
the claim.
For
instance, circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination can include
suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, different treatment, personal animus,
and other evidence can allow a jury to reasonably infer
intentional discrimination.
The Jessica Lal
Murder case gave rise a nation-wide uproar leading to the conviction of the
nine accused persons by the sessions court of New Delhi. This case led to an
amendment in the criminal law of the country. The reason because of which the
Jessica murder case is considered to be unique form any other murder case; is
that the victim herself and the accused persons were involved therein. The
deceased was a model by profession. A well known face of the glamour world; and
the latter was a man with powers, position, prestige in the society; which
was enough to construct or break the teeth of criminal law.
An interesting
aspect of this case is that; there was promotion of the Additional Sessional
Judges S. Bhayana to the High Court. The next day after the judgement was
delivered.
Facts
of the Case
The incident
took place on the night of 29 April 1999 and 30th April 1999 at
about 2 a.m.; at a place called the “Tamarind Cafe“ at
Qutus Colonnade; which is also known as: Once Upon A Time Restaurant. A Delhi
based socialite, Bina Ramani hosted a party for her husband who was leaving for
abroad. The deceased along with the prime witness named ‘ShyanMunshi’ was
serving as the bartenders. At about 2 a.m., 6-7 persons came and demanded
liquor to which Jessica replied that the bar has been closed; and the liquor
could not be served.
Hearing this ‘Manu
Sharma‘ became arrogant and he took out a pistol and fired two shots;
out of which one hit the roof and the other hit Jessica which lead to an injury
in her left eye. Everyone who were present at the party noticed that
there was something fishy. There was complete disturbance BimaRamani asked
Manu Sharma to hand over his gun. “GeogeMailhot” ran
towards the gate to catch a glimpse of the accused but by then; Manu had ran
away. The other accused named “Vikash Yadav”; Amardeep
Singh Gill accompanied Manu Sharma during the occurrence of the crime.
Jessica was
admitted to the hospital and on 30th April; in the early
morning hours she was declared dead by the doctor’s of Appollo Hospital.
Issues Raised
·
Whether the prosecution was successful in establishing; it’s
case against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?
·
That whether the trial court was justified in acquitting all the
accused persons ?
·
Whether the order of the High court was viable ?
Laws
Involved
·
Section 302 IPC, Section 201 read with 120 B IPC 1979
·
In Section 27 of the Arms Act 1969
·
Section 202 of IPC 1973
Applicability
of the Laws
·
Section 302 , 201 read with 120 B of IPC States the
offence of murder; removal of evidence or proving incorrect information read
with criminal conspiracy.
·
Section 27 of the arms act provides punishment for operating
guns.
·
Section 212 of IPC provides penalty for the offences related to
harbouring or concealing any person having knowledge; or who has a reason to
believe to be an offender.
Judgement
The Supreme court
held that the appellate court all the essential powers to re–examine all the
evidence; that was produced in the trial court and revise the order of
acquittal that was delivered by the trial court; and confirming the re
examination of the order of acquittal with proper reasoning.
The court stated, the prosecution established
accused ‘Manu Sharma‘ and eight accused beyond any doubt; and
the Court was in agreement with the settlement of the first court; and altered
the order of the acquittal into one of persuasion.
The supreme court
declared that all the appeals lacked merits and dismissed them.
Analysis
The whole case
relied upon circumstantial evidence which was established by the facts of the
case. SiddharthVasishth @ Manu Sharma in arrogance
fired a gunshot over the victim Jessica and in order to proved himself
innocent; he erased all the evidence and so was termed as a cold blooded
murderer.
Due to the intense
media and public pressure the high court conducted the hearings within 25
days in the fast track courts. Manu Sharma was sentenced to life imprisonment
on 20th December 2006. However, in the last two years, Manu
Sharma was transferred to an open jail due to his good conduct; and was
permitted to leave the prison at 6 a.m. and return by 6 p.m.; Manu Sharma was
released from prison of Tihar on account of good behaviour on 6th June
2020. The premature release was permitted by Lt. Governor of Delhi.
The Delhi sentence
review board ( SRB) suggested that Manu Sharma aged 49 yrs who survived 17
years in prison; had been out of pardon as a part of measures taken by the
prisons across the country to avoid the crowding in covid 19 crisis.
Conclusion
The Jessica murder
case is termed as a noteworthy case as many elite people were involved in this
case. If the accused had controlled his anger, Jessica would have been alive
today. Being the son of a politician; he didn’t have any fears of being caught
and even dear of going to the jail. If the media would not have interfered in
this case; Jessica would not have received justice till Today. The media gave a
whole New turn to the case which lead to the life imprisonment of Manu Sharma.
The underlying
message as given by this case is that the law must react to all the injustices
by opting for amendments; foundational aspects, systematic overhauls as may be
needed.
0 Comments