Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
Introduction:
The case in which high profile people were involved
including actors, politicians etc. This was the case of murder in which media
has played a very important role. This case has seen every twist and turns
throughout the trial in which many witnesses were turned hostile. The
34-year-old model that was shot dead and it hit the headlines when all the
accused have been acquitted by the trial court but later was convicted by a
high court which was then confirmed by Supreme Court.
Facts of the case:-
A night party was going to a restaurant called “once upon a
time” which was located at Qutub colonnade on the intervening night of
29th-30th April 1999. Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi were the two bartenders
serving drinks. about 2.00 a.m., Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma came there
with some of his friends and asked for drinks. As the party was over therefore
the waiter refused to serve him drinks. Jessica Lal and Malini Ramani tried to
make him understand that the party was over and there are no drinks available
with them. The accused Manu Sharma then took out his pistol and fired twice,
one on the roof and other on Jessica Lal which was resulted to hit nearby her
eye. Jessica was taken to Apollo hospital where she was declared dead. jessica
Lal was declared brought dead at Apollo Hospital.
In the investigation, the Delhi police have recovered a
tata safari which belonged to accused Manu Sharma. Accused Manu Sharma along
which his ten co-accused then surrendered in the court. the charge sheet was
filled and the trial was started in an additional session court against accused
Manu Sharma and other nine co-accused.
Manu Sharma and other nine had been acquitted by additional
session court of Delhi which was then challenged to the high court. The high
court of Delhi vide the impugned order given by additional session court and
convicted three accused member and acquitted other accused. The decision of the
high court of Delhi was then appealed to Supreme Court.
Issues:-
1.
Whether the
prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the
accused?
2.
Whether the trial
court has justified in acquitting all the accused in respect of all the charges
levied against them?
3.
Whether the order of
high court against the trial court is sustainable?
Judgement:
The apex court, in this case, upheld the order of the high
court of Delhi and the conviction of all three accused.
Reasons:
1.
It was proved that the
court has all the power to reevaluate the from the beginning and can reverse
the order of trial court based on the reasonable evidence.
2.
Form the testimonies
of PW’s no. 1, 2, 6, 20, 23,24 and 70 it was proved that accused Manu
Sharma was present at the
crime scene.
3.
As the phone calls
done after the crime was vague and henceforth cannot be treated as the FIR.
A proper FIR was lodged only
when the police have taken the testimony of PW’s 2 i.e. Shyan Munshi
4.
It was said that delay
in recording the statement of witnesses do not necessarily discredit their
testimonies.
5.
The court has not
reached on the specific conclusion out of the laboratory reports as in the
present case the reports of the laboratory are vague and ambiguous.
6.
The high court has
come to the correct conclusion by analyzing the evidence regarding actual incident,
the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence connecting the vehicles and
cartridges to the Manu Sharma, as well as his conduct after the incident that
proves that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
7.
If the public
prosecutor is not disclosing the rules related to the cases, it will not give
the reason to court to vitiate the entire trial. It will only be vitiated if it
amounts to a material irregularity and causes irreversible prejudice to the
accused.
8.
The accused has got
the fair trial and non-furnishing of the copy of ballistic report did not
hamper the ends of justice.
9.
With the testimonies
of PW’s 30 and 101, the conviction of other two accused namely, Amandeep
Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav are
correct.
10.
It was said that the
trial by media should be avoided at the stage when the suspect is entitled to
the constitutional protections.
From all the above reasons this court held that the
impugned order of the high court of conviction of Manu Sharma, Amandeep Singh
Gill and Vikas Yadav is correct and all the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Analysis:
1.
It was contended that
the accused Manu Sharma has been denied free and fair trial which is a
fundamental right guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution of India. As
stated in the case of Nirmal Singh kajlon vs the state of Punjab1,
there should be free investigation and fair trial to preserve the fundamental
right of the citizen which is guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian
constitution. In some cases like sasi Thomas vs. state of ors2.,
state inspector of police vs saurya Sankaran karri3 and
t.t. Anthony vs the state of Kerala4, it was
stated that the investigation and trial of a crime should be conducted in such
a manner that it should hamper the fundamental rights of a citizen which is
secured
1 AIR 2009 SC 984
2 (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 72
3
(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 225
4 (2001) 6 SCC 181
under article 19 and 21 of Indian constitution. It has
always been believed that in criminal cases the accused is said to be in an
advantageous position their rights and dignity has been preserved under
criminal jurisprudence because it is the duty of the prosecutor to prove the
accused guilty of charges.
2.
The court is correct
to say that police has not filed FIR against PW NO., 6, 20 and 24 under Punjab
excise act to support the prosecution case. It was alleged by the learned
counsel that police lodged FIR against the said witnesses to pressurize them to
support and then fine of rupees 200 only were imposed to make them free. The
witnesses denied that they were pressurized to give a statement in favour of
the prosecution and the fact that they were proven guilty under section 68 of
Punjab excise act. Pressurize and then release after the support releasing them
only just with fine of 200 cannot be acceptable as maximum punishment for the
said offence is fine of Rs. 200.
3.
The court is correct
to say that the two gun theory is not acceptable because as it was introduced
for the first time in the court by PW no. 2 i.e. Shyan Munshi and laboratory
report also does not find any same thing. It can clearly suggest that the
witness is hostile.
4.
in this type of cases
important point which needed to be concerned that.
i.
The accused was
present at the party which was confirmed by the testimonies of PW’s no. 1,
2, 6, 20, 23,24 and 70.
ii.
The accused has
carried a gun and fired with the same.
iii.
The deceased Jessica
Lal was killed.
iv.
The accused was then
absconded and tried to destroy the evidence by taking away tata safari
forcefully through tony gill and Vikas Yadav
5.
It was seen that the
PW no. 2 was hostile as he himself was calling that Jessica was killed and gave
the statement to the police with his sign. In the court, he submitted that
police has taken the statement in Hindi language and he didn’t understand the
language Hindi. he has done several Hindi movies and he also has Hindi as a 3rd
subject in school then it is not acceptable that he does not understand Hindi.
Police also said that they had made the witness listen to his statement again.
the witness also introduces the two gun theory for the first time in the court,
by saying that Manu Sharma has fired the shot on the ceiling and another guy
behind accused shot Jessica. This theory cannot be accepted as a laboratory
report also said that there was no other gun. It was clearly seen that this
witness is hostile.
Conclusion
It was seen that there was a lot of media pressure on this
case but it was outside the court, inside the court there was the normal
regular proceeding. No pressure on the court to finish this case early. The
court has taken their usual time to deal with this case. The media pressure
does not affect the court proceeding in any way possible. The court held high
court’s decision to be correct that all the three accused are guilty of the
said offences and dismissed their appeals.
){kind=link}
0 Comments