website : www.ebc-india.

com

Disclaimer: This text of the judgment/order is made available merely for

information to our subscribers. The text is yet to be processed, verified and
authenticated on the basis of the certified copy. Hence the editors, publishers
and/or printers shall not be liable for any action taken or omitted to be taken or
advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this text.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(R.S. Sodhi and P.K. Bhasin, JJ.)

State __________________________________________ Appellant(s);

v.

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma ________________________

Respondent(s).

Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006, decided on December 18, 2006

Reserved on : November 29, 2006

Through Mr. Gopal Subramanium, ASG with Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing
Counsel and Mr. Ashwini, Mr. Ankur Jain and Ms. Rajdeepa Behuria, Advs.

Through Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. with Pt. R.K. Naseem, Mr. Manu
Sharma, Mr. Harish Ghai, Mr. P.R. Mala, Ms. Latha Krishnamurthy, Mr. Sachin
Dev Sharma, and Mr. Sanjeev Advs. for Respondents. 1.

Mr. K.N. Balagopal, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Mr. G.K. Bharti, Mr. A.P. Mukandan,
Advs. For Respondent No. 2.

Mr. I.U. Khan, Sr. Adv. With Mr. R.D. Rana, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr.
Pramod Kumar Dubey, Ms. Arundhati Katju and Mr. Aman Khan, Advs. For R-3
and 4.

Pt. R.K. Naseem, Adv. For Respondents No. 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Mr. Vivek Sood, Adv. for R-9.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.S. Sodhi, J.

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

1. Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006 challenges the judgment of the

Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.2.2006 in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001,
arising out of FIR No. 287/99, Police Station, Mehrauli, whereby the learned
Judge has acquitted the respondents of all charges framed against them.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted down in the judgment under
challenge by the Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows :

"That on 29.4.1999 at Qutub Colonnade at ?Once upon a time? restaurant

also called 'Tamarind Cafe' a Thursday party was going on. At Thursday party
the liquor was being served by the bartenders, namely, Jessica Lal and Shyan
Munshi. At about 2 a.m. Shyan Munshi was present at Tamarind Cafe situated at
Qutub Colonnade five six persons including one waiter were also present there,
one person aged 30-32 years came out from the back side of bar and asked for
two drinks of liquor. The waiter did not serve him the liquor as the party was
already over. Jessica Lal and Malini Ramani who were also present there also
tried to make him understand that party was over and that there was no liquor
available with them. On this that person took out a pistol and fired one shot at
the roof and fired another shot at Jessica Lal which hit her near her left eye as a
result of which she fell down. Jessica Lal was rushed to Ashlok hospital from
where she was shifted to Apollo Hospital. On 30.4.99 in the early morning hours
Jessica Lal was declared dead at Apollo Hospital.

Charge u/s 302/201/120B IPC and also u/s 27 Arms Act has been framed
against accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. Charge u/s 120B/201 IPC
has been framed against accused Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill
and Alok Khanna. Charge u/s 212 IPC has been framed against the accused
Harvinder Chopra, Raja Chopra, Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill and Yograj Singh.
Charge u/s 201/212 IPC has been framed against accused Shyam Sunder
Sharma. Charges were framed and read over to the accused persons to which all
the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.?

3. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Prosecution in order to

support their case, examined as many as 101 witnesses. Of which, PW-1 Deepak
Bhojwani, PW-2 Shyan Munshi, PW-3, Shiv Dass Yadav, PW-4 Karan Rajput,
PW-5 Parikshat Sagar, PW-6, Malini Ramani, PW-7, Naveen Chopra, PW-9 Dr.
R.K. Sharma, PW-10 Dr. Jasvinder Singh, PW-15 Sumitabh Bhatnagar, PW-19
Andleep Sehgal, PW-20, Beena Ramani, PW-21 ASI Madan Pal, PW-24, George
Mailhot, PW-46 Madan Kumar, PW-63 Ram Avtar, PW-70 Rohit Bal, PW-79
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, PW-99 Dr. Deepak Vats, PW-100 SI Sunil Kumar, CW-
1 Dr. Rawel Singh and CW-2 HC Ram Dayal are the witnesses whose
testimonies have been discussed while the remaining witnesses were formal in
nature.

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

4. The learned Additional Sessions, upon appreciation of evidence on record,

came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has been able to prove that accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was holding a licensed pistol of .22 bore
and that he had purchased 25 rounds of cartridges from Haryana Gun House on
4.2.1999 and that the pistol used in the commission of the crime has not been
recovered from Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma. The learned Judge held
that the Tata Safari car bearing registration No. CH-01-W-6535 was registered
in the name of M/s Piccadilly Agro Industries Private Limited of which
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was one of the directors. The learned Judge
also held that Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khanna were working in
Hindustan Coca Cola Company at the relevant time and were allotted Tata Siera
car each. He further held that Tata Siera car bearing registration No. HR-26-H-
4348 was allotted to Amardeep Singh Gill. The learned Judge also held that
Amardeep Singh Gill was given mobile phone No. 9811100237 while Alok
Khanna was given mobile phone No. 9811068169 by the Hindustan Coca Cola
Company. The Court also held that telephone No. 3782072 was installed at B.R.
Mehta Lane which was the residence of Mr. D.P. Yadav, father of the accused,
Vikas Yadav, and that telephone Nos. 4765152-53 were installed at the Sugar
Mill owned by Piccadilly Agro Industries Private Limited of which Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Shyam Sunder Sharma and Harvinder Chopra were
directors at the relevant time. The Court returned a finding that Beena Ramani
was the owner of the restaurant ?Once Upon a Time? and she was running a
cafe named 'Tamarind Court Cafe' at Qutub Colonnade. The Court went on to
return a finding that on 29.4.1999 i.e. the day of occurrence a private party was
held at the restaurant 'Tamarind Court Cafe' which was a Thursday party held
weekly and liquor was served. At that party, Jessica Lal was wearing a blue
denim short and half sleeve white shirt. The Court also held that the accused,
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, along with co-accused Amardeep Singh
Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav, was present at the said party at Tamarind
Court Cafe on the night of the occurrence when someone fired a shot at Jessica
Lal as a result of which she received injury on her head. She was removed to
Ashlok Hospital from where she was removed to Apollo Hospital and declared
'brought dead' by the doctor at 4.37 a.m. The Court further returned a finding
that Jessica Lal was transferred from Apollo Hospital to All India Institute of
Medical Sciences where postmortem was conducted by Dr. R.K. Sharma who
opined that the cause of death was head injury caused by fire arm which was
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Additional
Sessions Judge agreed with the Public Prosecutor that PW-2, Shyan Munshi,
came running to PW-20, Beena Ramani, and told her that someone had fired a
shot at Jessica Lal and Jessica Lal had received injuries in that firing. The
learned Judge also returned a finding that Beena Ramani tried to stop one person
named, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, who was coming along with Shyan
Munshi. She also told him to give her the gun. The Court, relying upon the
evidence of PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, returned a finding that Sidhartha Vashisht
@ Manu Sharma was seen at the party at Tamarind Court Cafe and that Manu
Sharma had asked for two pegs of whisky from PW-1 who also saw the other co-

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

accused persons joining Manu Sharma later on. This witness has identified
Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav which, according to the
Court, proves that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep
Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were present at the Tamarind Court
Cafe where the incidence took place.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not agree that Tata
Safari car bearing registration No. CH-01-W-6535 was used by the accused
persons to come to Qutub Colonnade. The Court also held that mere use of
telephones by the accused persons to contact each other before and after the
incidence is of no consequence as the conversation was not placed on record.
The Court also dismissed the conversation recorded between Ashok Dutt and
Ravinder Sudan. The Court disagreed with the Public Prosecutor that there was
any evidence on record to show that Harvinder Chopra, Yog Raj Singh and
Shyam Sunder Sharma had, in any manner, given shelter to Manu Sharma after
the incidence which may amount to harbouring of a criminal. The Court further
disagreed with the Public Prosecutor that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma
had absconded from the jurisdiction of the Police immediately after the
commission of the crime.

6. Agreeing with the arguments of counsel for the accused, the Court held
that PW-2, Shyan Munshi, PW-3 Shiv Dass Yadav and PW-4 Karan Rajput were
not eye witnesses and had not seen the occurrence. Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma had purchased 25 rounds of .22 bore against his licence from PW-7,
Naveen Chopra, and that those cartridges were marked 'KF' indicating the
manufacture at Kirki Factory. None of these cartridges were used in the
commission of crime. The Court held ? that the Police on 30.4.1999 had
decided to frame the accused Sidhartha Vashisht in this case; that PW-30, Delhi
Home Guard Sharwan Kumar, was not present on the spot on the night of the
occurrence on 29/30.4.1999; that PW-101 Inspector Surender Kumar had
introduced the story of broken pieces of glasses falsely; that there is no
evidence on record to show that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma,
Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav had come in a black Tata
Safari car to Qutub Colonnade on the night of 29/30.4.1999; that the
Prosecution had failed to connect the mobile phone No. 9811096893 with the
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma; that PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani had
been introduced as a false witness; that the evidence of PW-6, Malini Ramani is
of no help to the Prosecution as also the evidence of PW-20 Beena Ramani; that
PW-24 George Mailhot was not present at the Tamarind Court Cafe at the time
of the incident; that the Prosecution has failed to prove the conversation
between PW-57 Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Sudan @ Titu; that the Prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that no chance prints were
lifted from the black Tata Safari car No. CH-01-W- 6535; that although the
accused persons were present at the party on the fateful night of the occurrence,
their mere presence is of no consequence; that the photographs of all the accused
persons, namely, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill,

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

Ashok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were shown to the witnesses before the accused
were identified in Court; that there is no evidence against Shyam Sunder
Sharma regarding involvement in destruction of evidence or harbouring of the
accused persons; that no case is proved against Yog Raj Singh, Harvinder
Chopra, Raja Chopra and Vikas Gill.

7. In view of the aforesaid findings, the trial court came to the conclusion
that all the links in the chain of evidence produced by the Prosecution are either
missing or broken. The Court went on to hold that the Prosecution had
miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and thereby acquitted
them of all charges.

8. Challenging the correctness of the judgment under appeal, Shri Gopal

Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General, argued that the judgment
under challenge is self-destructive, contradictory and omits to appreciate the
evidence on record as also a misread evidence. In support of his contention,
learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the Court agrees with the
Prosecution to the effect that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was holder of
a licensed pistol of .22 bore; that Tata Safari car No. CH-01-W-6535 was
registered in the name of Piccadilly Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh, of
which accused Sidharth Vasihshth was one of the directors; that Amardeep
Singh Gill was allotted Tata Siera car bearing registration No. HR- 26-H-4348;
that Amardeep Singh Gill was having mobile phone No. 9811100237, Alok
Khanna was having mobile phone No. 9811068169 given by Hindustan Coca
Cola Company and that telephone No.3782072 was installed at the residence of
D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav, and that telephone Nos. 4765152-53 were
installed at the Sugar Mill owned by Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited of
which Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma and Harvinder Chopra were directors
at the relevant time; that Beena Ramani owned the restaurant ?Once Upon a
Time? and she was running a cafe named 'Tamarind Court Café' at Qutub
Colonnade at the relevant time and that on 29.4.1999 a private party was going
on at the said restaurant which was a regular Thursday party when liquor was
served in the restaurant; that the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma,
along with the co-accused Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav,
was present at the said party at Tamarind Court Cafe on the night of the
occurrence when someone fired a shot at Jessica Lal as a result of which she
received injuries on the head. She was removed to Ashlok Hospital from where
she was removed to Apollo Hospital and declared ?brought dead?. The body
was transferred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences where postmortem was
conducted by Dr. R.K. Sharma who opined that the cause of death was head
injury caused by fire arm and it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature; that PW-20, Beena Ramani, deposed that PW-2 Shyan
Munshi, came running to her and told her that someone had fired a shot at
Jessica Lal and she had received injuries in that firing; that PW-20 Beena
Ramani had stated that she stopped one person, namely, Sidhartha Vashisht who
was coming along with Shyan Munshi; that she told him to give her the gun;

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna
and Vikas Yadav were seen at the spot of occurrence on the night of
29/30.4.1999. Learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the findings of
the trial court against the Prosecution in paragraphs 241, 250, 251, 254, 277,
278, 280, 285, 292 and 295 in relation to the occurrence are incorrect and
perverse. He relied upon the testimony of PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, who states
that Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi were serving liquor on that night at the bar
counter. I was moving around in the party with two glasses of whisky when I
came across a person having fair complexion who was giving smile to me. I also
reciprocated. He gave me his name as Manu Sharma. He said as to how I was
holding two glasses of whisky in my hands whereas he was unable to get even
one. Manu Sharma came into my contact after about 10-15 minutes of my
purchasing two pegs of whisky. The witness goes on to say we were already
introduced to each other and were about to exchange visiting cards when one
tall Sikh gentleman came from behind of Manu Sharma and told him something
and took him away towards Tamarind Cafe.

9. Learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the Prosecution has been
able to prove that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill,
Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were present at the spot of incidence on the night
of 29/30.4.1999, their identities having been fixed. There is evidence on record
to show that Manu Sharma had a fire arm on his person and used the same to
fire two shots, one in the air which went through the roof and the other that
struck Jessica Lal. He submitted that the Prosecution has been able to prove that
the findings of the trial court against the Prosecution are incorrect and perverse
without basis of the evidence adduced on record. He submitted that the
Prosecution has been able to show by positive evidence that Manu Sharma was
the owner of and in possession of a .22 bore Berretta pistol made in Italy; that
two empty cartridges cases of the .22 with ?C? mark were recovered from the
spot; that the mutilated lead recovered from the skull of the deceased was of .22
and could have been fired from a standard .22 calibre firearm; that from the Tata
Safari live cartridges of .22 with mark ?C? was recovered indicating that the
fired cartridge and live one were of the similar make; that the two .22 cartridge
cases of ?C? mark were lying near each other on the counter discarding the
theory of 'that they were fired by two different people'. He submitted that the
Prosecution has been able to show that the Expert opinion of Roop Singh is not
admissible and cannot be used as evidence. It has also been able to show that
the opinion of Prem Sagar Minocha given in Ex. PW-95/C-1 is inconclusive. His
testimony in Court that destroys his opinion, Ex. PW-95/C-1, is baseless and
cannot be relied upon. The Prosecution has been able to show that Manu
Sharma came to Qutub Colonnade in a black Tata Safari car No.CH-01-W-
6535 which he abandoned while making a hasty escape after the shooting. In
other words, the Prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the
accused beyond shadow of doubt.

10. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the basis of the

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

judgment of acquittal is clearly erroneous, perverse and deserves to be set aside

for reasons that the trial court wrongly proceeded on the basis that it was the
story of the Prosecution that two shots were fired by two persons from two
different pistols which was never the case of the Prosecution. Moreover, in the
light of ocular testimony of PW-2, Beena Ramani, the ballistic expert, whose
testimony is riddled with contradictions, cannot be used to override the ocular
evidence. The Court erred in holding that all the three eye witnesses turned
hostile and overlooked the fact that PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, PW-20, PW-24 and PW-
70 were witnesses of different aspects of the incidence and that the evidence has
to be read as a whole. The trial court grossly erred in the manner of appreciation
of testimonies of the said witnesses by reading into the said testimony what was
not there. The key witnesses? evidence which did not exist, for instance, while
dealing with PW-20, the trial court arrived at a factually wrong finding, not
borne out from the evidence on record, to the effect that she thought that he had
fired a shot at Jessica Lal and that she was not an eye witness. The extent of
perversity in the judgment is also reflected by a fallacious presumption drawn
about the manner of investigation in paragraph 256 of the judgment. The
findings are without any basis. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted
that from the testimony of the PW-101, Inspector Surender Sharma, it was
revealed that when the said witness was informed by PW-30 about the Tata
Safari having been taken away by force, he communicated the said information
to his superiors in order to find out the ownership details about the Tata Safari
car bearing Chandigarh registration number. In reply, he was informed that the
same was registered in the name of Piccadilly Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. of
which Manu Sharma was a director and the same was being used by him. The
Court has erred in reading the said piece of evidence and thereby coming to a
perverse finding. The trial court wrongly placed reliance on Ex. PW-24/A which
is the guest list and disbelieved the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses PW-
1, PW-24 and PW-30 as being planted witnesses. This guest list which was
prepared by PW-24 was pressed into service even though the trial court returned
a finding that PW-24 was not present at the scene of occurrence. In paragraph
278 of the judgment, the trial court justifies refusal of Test Identification Parade
on a wrong premises that PW-6 had stated that photograph of Manu Sharma
were shown to her parents. Similarly, at paragraph 279, the trial court wrongly
finds that PW-20 had stated that she heard another shot being fired by someone
in the restaurant. Also in paragraph 254 the trial court, in order to arrive at a
finding that PW-2, Shyan Munshi, did not know Hindi, wrongly finds that PW-
23, Rouble Dunglay, has deposed that Shyan Munshi did not know Hindi.

11. Learned Additional Solicitor General further went on to pick holes in the
judgment by submitting that the trial court arrived at a finding that Manu
Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were present at
the scene of occurrence with the aid of PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, whom he
discards, as having been a planted witness. Nonetheless, having returned such a
finding, the burden of proof shifted to the accused persons who flatly denied
their presence at the scene of occurrence without even setting up a plea of alibi.

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

He went on to submit that this is a case where a host of Prosecution witnesses

turned hostile at the instance of the defence. It has got introduced false evidence
into the case from the witnesses who have turned hostile and that the defence
has even gone on to tamper with judicial record. The Court should have seen
through the game of the defence rather than, with single stroke, paint the
Prosecution as villain of having set up a false case against Manu Sharma.

12. Arguing on behalf of the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma,

Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that Manu Sharma
was not present at the Qutub Colonade on 29/30.4.1999. He submitted that there
is nothing to prove the presence of Manu Sharma at the spot of occurrence and
that the witnesses PW-1, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-19 do not, in any manner, show
that they knew the accused and their testimonies cannot be used by the
Prosecution to take advantage to fix the presence of the accused at the spot of
occurrence specially when PW-1 already stands stamped as a 'planted witness'.
He submitted that PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani's statement is filled with
improvements and contradictions besides the fact that his statement was
recorded at a very late stage, the same does not inspire confidence and cannot
be relied upon. PW-6, Malini Ramani, has been discussed by the trial court in
paragraphs 278 and 292 of the judgment. The findings are justified from the
material on record. In addition, he submitted that this witness fainted on hearing
that Jessica Lal had been hit and cannot, therefore, be a witness of the
occurrence. He also submitted that this witness along with her parents was under
extreme Police pressure. She had been interrogated intensely for five days, the
photographs were shown to her, the Police had made her to sign statements and
put psychological pressure on her, as such was a pliable witness for the
Prosecution but not a reliable witness for the Court. A false excise case was
registered to keep the pressure alive during deposition which was subsequently
got decided with a paltry fine. Counsel submitted that impermissible leading
questions were put to this witness as regards identification which cannot be
used as evidence. In any event, this witness was too drunk since she had been
drinking from the start upto the finish of the party. She can hardly be expected
to remember anything of importance. There is no evidence to show the presence
of Manu Sharma at Qutub Colonnade in the aforesaid party on the night of
29/30.4.1999. From the testimony of PW-2, Shyan Munshi, PW-3, Shiv Dass
Yadav and PW-4, Karan Rajput, it is clear that nobody saw Manu Sharma at the
place of incidence nor did anybody see Manu Sharma using fire arm to fire two
shots let alone to fire the shot that killed Jessica Lal. None of these witnesses
were eye witnesses to the occurrence but are witnesses of prior and subsequent
events. PW-2, Shyan Munshi, clearly states that two different people fired from
two different weapons. His statement made to the police which is stated to be
the FIR was never dictated by him nor read over to him as it was in Hindi, a
language not known to him. Counsel submitted that the statement of the witness
sought to be used by the Prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused is hit
by Section 162 Cr.P.C. since the witnesses were made to sign their statements.
The evidentiary value, therefore, has been impaired considerably and cannot be

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

used as pure evidence. Counsel submitted that an atmosphere of prejudicial hate

had been created to implicate Manu Sharma while the actual culprits
successfully managed to divert the investigation to a wrong direction and
escaped. The theory of two persons having fired two bullets was deliberately
abandoned by the Police itself. He submitted that the charge, as framed ,is under
Section 302 IPC, but when there is a possibility of two bullets being fired by two
different persons, there is no certainty that the bullet that killed Jessica Lal was
fired by Manu Sharma. He could not, therefore, be convicted under Section 302
IPC. He contended that Beena Ramani was not present in the party. This is
evident from the site plan where Beena Ramani has not been shown. Relying
upon PW-4, PW-6 and PW-47, counsel submitted that these Prosecution
witnesses are not hostile. From their statements it is evident that Beena Ramani
did not see the shooting. Counsel further went on to submit that the Prosecution
has failed to prove that the fatal bullet was in possession of the accused, Manu
Sharma, at 2.00 a.m. on 29/30.4.1999. The Prosecution has not been able to get
rid of the fact that there were two persons who fired two bullets. Even otherwise,
there is no proof that Manu Sharma fired the fatal bullet. The FIR based on the
statement of Shyan Munshi cannot be treated as an FIR. His statement was got
signed by the Police and is hit by Section 162(2) Cr.P.C. He submitted that the
Police has manufactured evidence after investigation upto the date of trial. PW-1
had stated that he had told the Police that Manu Sharma was the killer but his
statement was recorded on the 14.5.1999, the long delay is fatal. This witness
has made 21 improvements. He is known to the deceased and has every reason
to make a false statement. In any event, he was too drunk on the date of the
occurrence to be a meaningful witness. There has been a dishonest attempt by
the Prosecution to improve the case against Manu Sharma by introduction of
PW-1 whose statement lacks independent corroboration. He fully supports the
statement of PW-2, Shyan Munshi who, counsel submitted, cannot be relied
upon by the Prosecution but the accused has every right to rely upon the same
since it was not put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
that the motive attributed is inadequate and is of much higher intent and
intensity. Shyan Munshi clearly states that two shots were fired by two different
persons and there is no reason to disbelieve this witness who finds support from
the ballistic evidence, Ex. PW-89/DA. Counsel also went on to submit that the
Prosecution has been dishonest and unfair in trying to withhold evidence of the
ballistic expert, Roop Singh, which had to be brought on record by the accused
who made an application to that effect in the Court. Even the ballistic expert
produced by the Prosecution has clearly stated that the two empties examined
appear to have been fired from two different fire arms. From the opinion of the
expert and the statement of Shyan Munshi, it is not possible for this Court to go
against the finding that two persons had fired two shots. According to the
counsel, from the testimony of PW-23, Rouble Dunglay, it is clear that the
whole story of non serving liquor being the motive of the crime is a concoction.
Jessica Lal died not because she did not give what she did not have, but did not
give what she had which had hurt the manhood of the assailant. The Prosecution
must necessarily succeed as of late and cannot be allowed to create a new one.

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

Counsel categorically stated that there is nothing on record to show that Manu
Sharma fired a shot, there is evidence which discloses that two persons fired
shot and one of them had fired a shot in the air. Nobody saw Manu Sharma
firing the fatal shot. In any event, Manu Sharma was not there nor did he need a
drink. Shyan Munshi is a reliable witness who states that Manu Sharma was not
the one who fired a shot in the open.

13. Attacking PW-24, George Mailhot, counsel submitted that his statement
is hit by Section 163 Cr.P.C. and Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This
witness saw a Sardar standing above the desert spot who was maintaining calm.
It was this Sardar, according to counsel, who fired the fatal shot. He contended
that the examination-in-chief of this witness was concluded on 18.10.2001 at
which time the Prosecution ensured that in the excise case an application was
moved for preponement. His supporting the Prosecution's case was the result of
a package deal prepared between the Police and the Ramani family. In the excise
case, he was allowed to plead guilty and let off with a small fine. This witness
was under constant threat which is violative of Section 163 Cr.P.C. His
testimony is seriously impaired. Analysing his statement, counsel submitted that
taking away the omissions, the only part that is left is that Beena Ramani was
following a boy. The improvements in the testimony have been made at the
instance of the Prosecution. From the testimonies of PW-46, PW-47 and PW-86,
it is evident that PW-24, George Mailhot, was not at the Qutub Colonnade at the
time of the occurrence. The finding of the trial court that George Mailhot was
not a witness, cannot be faulted with.

14. Further attacking PW-6 Malini Ramani, counsel submitted that her
evidence, even if taken as it is, only establishes that Manu Sharma was at the
spot. Her statement was recorded after undue delay. The party was over by
midnight and at 1.45 a.m. she was still drinking and looking for more which
implies that she was drunk and further she could not even identify any of the 40
persons who were demanding liquor. She had not even seen Shyan Munshi but
only heard shots. This witness was too drunk or was busy doing whatever she
was. Counsel went on to submit that the non-examination of Mehtani should be
taken against the Prosecution as he was a material witness. The Qutub
Colonnade was too crowded, identification in such a crowd is impossible that
too by a person who has drunk more than her share for that evening. He
submitted that this witness has stated that her statement was recorded on three
occasions and she was made to sign the statements which is hit by Section 163
Cr.P.C. The testimony of this witness is of no use to the Prosecution.

15. Mr. Jethmalani also attacked PW-20, Beena Ramani. He submitted that
this witness was not present at the Tamarind Court Cafe and did not see
anything . Even otherwise, he submitted that if the substantive evidence given in
court is weak, it is useless. Identification in Court of the accused for the first
time is useless unless the capacity to identify and actual identification of the

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

culprit are corroborated by a properly held Test Identification Parade. A Test

Identification Parade which is rendered difficult is useless by reason of no
misconduct of the accused but of the Agency and takes away the safeguards
known to law and renders the substantive evidence useless. Even the Test
Identification Parade is not enough, there must be something more to connect
the accused with the crime. If the accused or the suspect has been physically
shown either before the Court hearing or before the Test Identification Parade,
the evidence of identification becomes useless. He submitted that the
identification in Court is of no consequence, as has been held by the Supreme
Court in Hari Nath and Anr. vs. State of U.P., 1988 (1) SCC 14, Budhsen and
Anr. vs. State of U.P, 1970 (2) SCC 128. Even according to the Prosecution, this
witness is not an eye witness, as has been stated by PW-100 and PW-101.
According to the counsel, Beena Ramani does not prove that Manu Sharma shot
the fatal shot at the deceased. Her statement regarding stopping a person is a
concoction not because of malice or untruth but due to a compromise with truth.
The truth of the incidence is given in the statements of PW-46 and PW-47 who
say that Beena Ramani was with them till she took Jessica Lal to the hospital.

16. Counsel also submitted that there is a contradiction in the Prosecution's

case inasmuch as in the FIR it is mentioned that Malini Ramani was present at
the restaurant; that George Mailhot says that Shyan Munshi was with some boy
but did not say that the man shot Jessica Lal; Shyan Munshi in the FIR says that
he saw Beena Ramani, therefore, the story cooked up by Beena that she
accosted the man who had shot Jessica Lal is a concoction. The entire family
had been put under great pressure by the Police who threatened to implicate
them in the present case for removing evidence and also in a false excise case in
which they were ultimately got let off lightly. No importance can be attached to
the statement of Beena Ramani. Counsel went on to submit that on 31.5.1999, a
photograph of Manu Sharma was taken by the Police from the Farmhouse of his
father. It was here that his pistol and ammunitions were also taken into
possession but no recovery memo was made. This was deliberately done to
implicate Manu Sharma in this case. PW-101 admits of having taken up
photographs of Manu Sharma from the Farmhouse. He also admits that no
recovery memo was made. This clearly shows that the investigation has
deliberately cooked up a false case of Manu Sharma having used his licensed
gun or Manu Sharma having used his gun to kill Jessica Lal and is now not
producing that licensed weapon.

17. Mr. Ram Jethmalani in support of his contentions referred to the

following judgments : State of Rajasthan vs. Teg Bahadur and Others, (2004) 13
SCC 300; State vs. Siddarth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma and Others, 2001 III AD
(DELHI) 829; Sohan Lal alias Sohan Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab,
(2003) 11 SCC 534; Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294; M/s.
T.D. Kumar and Bros. Private Ltd. vs. Iron and Steel Controller and Others,
AIR 1961 Calcutta 258 (V 48 C 59); R vs . R Turnbull (63 Criminal Appeal
Report 132); Budhsen and Ors. vs. State vs. UP, 1970 (2) SCC 128; Duraipandi

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

Tewar and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1973 (3) SCC 680; Hari Nath and Anr.
vs. State of UP, 1988 (1) SCC 14; Bollavaran P N Reddy and Ors. vs. State of A
P, 1991 (3) SCC 434; Laxmipat Choraria vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968
SC 938; Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 3031;
The King vs. Thomas Dwyer and Allen Ferguson, (1925) 2 K B 799; Sharad
Birdi Chand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Ramgopal vs.
State, AIR 1972 SC 656; State of H P vs. Om Parkash, AIR 1972 SC 975;
Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari vs. State, AIR 2005 SC 2804; Raja Ram vs. State of
Rajasthan, JT 2000 (7) SC 549; Emperor vs. Ardali Mian, AIR 1933 Patna 496;
Jagdeo Singh vs. Emperor, 24 Cr L J 69; Sukhram vs. State of M.P., 1989 C C
Cases 135 (SC); Zahira Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 (2) SCC 158;
Satyajeet Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 (1) SCC 115; Tokh Ram vs.
State, 1982 Cr L J; P Varadrajulu Naidu vs. King Emperor, ILR 42 Mad 885;
Kessowji Issur Great Indian Peninsula, 34 Indian Appeals 115 = ILR Vol.XXXI
PC 381; Arjan Singh vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 1951 SC 193; Empress of India and
Anr., ILR 5 ALL.218; Abinash Chandra Bose vs. Bimal Krishna Sen and Anr,
AIR 1963 SC 316; Ukha Kohle vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1531;
State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal, AIR 1987 SC 1321; Bir Singh and Ors. vs. State
of UP, AIR 1978 SC 59; Rajeshwar Prasad vs. State of W B, AIR 1965 SC
1887; M P Lohia vs. State of West Bengal, JT 2005 (2) SC 105; The King vs.
Parke, (1903) K B 432; Ramchander vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1036;
Emperor vs. Ram Singh, AIR 1948 Lah. 24; Rao Harnarain vs. Gumani Ram,
AIR 1958 Punjab 273; Smt. Padmavati vs. R K Karanjia, AIR 1963 SC MP 61;
Sebastian vs. Karunakaran, AIR 1967 Ker. 177; Banu Singh vs. Emperor, X
CWN 962; Ramanathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 1204; State of
Delhi vs. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961; M.P. Narayana Menon, 1925
MADRAS 106; Mohinder Singh vs. State, AIR 1963 SC 415; Zahiruddin vs.
Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 75; R vs. Preston, (1993) 4 ALL E R 838; Practice Note,
(1982) 1 ALL E R 734; Jagjit Singh alias Jagga Vs. State of Punjab,
2005(3)SCC 689; Maruti Rama Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003(10) SCC
670; Hallu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1936;
Duraipandi Thevar and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1973(3) SCC 680;
Somappa Vamanappa madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi Vs. The State of
Mysore, AIR 1979 SC 1831; Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135; Tapinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another, AIR 1970 SC 1566; Soma Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC
1453; Kanhai Mishra alia Kanhaiya Misar Vs. State of Bihar, 2001(3) SCC 451;
Willie (William) Slaney Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116; State
of Punjab Vs. Swaran Singh, 2005 (6) SCC 101; Basavaraj R.Patil and others
Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2000 SC 3214; Dal Singh Vs. King-
Emperor, AIR 1917 PC 25; Habeeb Mohammad Vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR
1954 SC 51; State of Kerala vs. Ammini and others, AIR 1988 Ker. 1; Sidharth
and others vs. State of Bihar, 2005 (12) SCC 545; Damodar Vs. State of
Rajasthan, 2004 (12) SCC 336 and Budhsen and another Vs. State of UP, 1970
(2) SCC 128. The propositions of law are well established and are not in dispute.

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

18. Factually, Mr. Jethmalani would have the court believe that Sidhartha
Vashishta @ Manu Sharma was not present, Beena Ramani was not present,
George Mailhot was not present, Deepak Bhagwant was not present and the
Tata Safari was planted. He would also have us believe that two weapons were
used which he supports with the aid of experts and Shyan Munshi.

19. Mr. Jethmalani having concluded his argument on behalf of Manu

Sharma, left the remaining arguments to be concluded by Pt. R.K. Naseem,
learned Advocate who addressed arguments on the importance of Tata Safari at
Qutub Colonnade and thereafter its recovery from Noida. Counsel stressed that
the vehicle was not present at the Qutub Colonnade in the first instance and the
recovery of this vehicle from Noida was a 'plant'. He contended that the
ownership is not in dispute. He also did not dispute that Sidhartha Vashishta @
Manu Sharma is a director of the Company, but went on to contend that the
vehicle in question was allotted to Harvinder Chopra which has been amply
proved by the statement of PW-25, Manoj Kumar, as also PW-26, Balbir Singh.
He also contended that the vehicle was not being used by Sidhartha Vashisht @
Manu Sharma which is evident from the deposition of PW-44, Shankar Mukhia,
and PW-98, Babu Lal. In view of the above, counsel contended that there is no
evidence on record to show that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was either
using the vehicle or was in possession thereof on the night of the occurrence.

20. Advancing his argument further, counsel submitted that the presence of
Tata Safari at the Qutub Colonnade has not been proved. PW-83, Head
Constable Devi Singh of the PCR reached the spot at 2.17 a.m. and his
statement in court is contrary to the statement made to Police and, therefore, he
is not a trustworthy witness. PW-78, Shri Sarad Kumar Bishoi does not talk
about the Tata Safari in his statement to the police but has improved his
statement in court. He too is not reliable and, in fact, a plant as he was supposed
to be performing his assigned duty rather than be present at the Qutub
Colonnade.

21. PW-100, SI Sunil Kumar, does not talk about Tata Safari in exhibit PW-
2/A and, therefore, cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution. PW-30,
Home Guard Constable Sarvan Kumar's testimony does not find corroboration
from S.I. Sarad Kumar nor from PW-86, Jagannath Jha as also finds no support
from PW-47, Jatender Raj, Manager. In other words, there is nothing on record
to show with certainty that the Tata Safari was at the Qutub Colonnade on the
night of 29/30.4.1999. He supported the findings of the trial court in paragraphs
257, 258 and 259.

22. Attacking the recovery, counsel submitted that there is evidence on

record to show that the Tata Safari was recovered from Karnal. This fact having
come on record, the assertion by the Prosecution that Tata Safari was recovered
from Noida is a manipulation to further the Prosecution's case by planting

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

evidence. The recoveries effected from Tata Safari do not further the case of the
Prosecution regarding the broken pieces of glasses. Counsel also severely
criticized PW-30 Constable Sarvan Kumar, as being a planted witness who has
improved his statement considerably in court. Counsel also contended that the
phone calls alleged to have been made by some of the accused persons amongst
themselves is no indication that they were involved in any crime. The
Prosecution has not placed on record any conversation to suggest such an
involvement. Summing up his arguments, counsel strongly relied upon the
judgment of the trial court and argued that the Prosecution has miserably failed
to bring home the guilt of the accused.

23. Learned counsel arguing on behalf of Shyam Sunder Sharma submitted

that although this accused has been charged for an offence under Section 212
IPC, namely, harbouring Ravinder Krishan Sudan, but there is no incriminating
evidence to suggest that Shyam Sunder Sharma ever harboured Ravinder
Krishan Sudan. Similarly, Harvinder Chopra has been charged for arranging stay
of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at the house of PW-52, Chander Prakash
Chopra, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a charge.

24. Counsel arguing for Yog Raj Singh submitted that the Prosecution in
order to prove their case against this accused pressed into service PW-53, Abhijit
Ghosal, PW-64 Ravinder Singh Gill and PW-65, Kulvinder Singh but have
failed to bring home any evidence in support of the allegation that Yog Raj
Singh arranged for Sidhartha Vashisht to be taken to Khera in Muktsar, Punjab.
Similar arguments were made in the case of Vikas Gill who was alleged to have
taken Sidhartha Vashisht to Panchkula from Delhi. There is no evidence to this
effect on record.

25. Learned counsel arguing on behalf of Amardeep Singh Gill stated that
the allegation against him is that he drove the Tata Siera car to Qutub
Colonnade after the incident to enable Vikas Yadav to remove the same and,
therefore, was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 201/120-B
IPC is baseless. Counsel argued that the only evidence against Vikas Yadav is
him being identified by PW-30, Sarvan Kumar who is not a reliable witness. His
presence at Qutub Colonnade is doubtful. Besides, Tata Safari was not reported
to be parked at Qutub Colonnade in the first instance. Sarvan Kumar has been a
planted witness to prove the events which have got no bearing with the actual
crime. In any event, the car which Amardeep Singh Gill is stated to have driven
was a Tata Siera belonging to Alok Khanna being car No. MP-04-2634. This is
in spite of the fact that Amardeep Singh Gill had his own Tata Siera. Counsel
also went on to stress that presuming the Tata Safari was removed by Vikas
Yadav with the aid of Amardeep Singh Gill, no offence has been committed
since the Prosecution has failed to prove any destruction of evidence by
Amardeep Singh Gill or Vikas Yadav.

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

26. Arguing on behalf of Vikas Yadav, counsel pointed out that even if for
the sake of arguments, and without conceding, Vikas Yadav had removed the
Tata Safari car from Qutub Colonnade after the incident, the same did not
amount to an offence under Section 201 IPC since the accused did not cause
any evidence of commission of an offence to disappear nor is it proved that
there was any intention to screen the offender from legal punishment. The Tata
Safari was not used in the commission of the offence and its removal could not
be said to be causing any evidence of commission of an offence to disappear
with intention of screening the offender. There is no evidence on record to show
that the Tata Safari removed by Vikas Yadav was got repaired. Merely because
Vikas Yadav obtained pre-arrest bail or stayed in hotel under an assumed name
or that his bail was canceled, has got no relevance with the offence under
Section 201 IPC for which he is charged. Counsel also contended that the
identification of Vikas Yadav through photographs when he was in fact present,
is of no consequence. In any event, there is no evidence to show that Vikas
Yadav stayed in a hotel under an assumed name. PW-54, Varun Shah, PW-55
Mukesh Saini, PW-72 Lal Singh and PW-77 Gajender Singh, who were
examined in this respect, do not support the Prosecution's case. Counsel relied
upon AIR 2004 SC 4965, AIR 1956 Madras 536 and AIR 1956 SC 527, but
pressed on the point that photographic identification was a weak piece of
evidence specially when the accused is present, and Test Identification Parade
could be held. Counsel, therefore, concluded that the material on record does not
prove the charge under Section 201 IPC against Vikas Yadav.

27. Raj Chopra is charged for driving the car to enable Sidhartha Vashisht @
Manu Sharma to go to Chandigarh. Counsel also submitted that there is ample
evidence on record to show that the car so used was already under transfer prior
to the occurrence. Raj Chopra had no hand in the use of such a car. There is no
evidence on record to show the involvement of Raj Chopra nor any evidence to
prove the charge under Section 201 IPC against this accused.

28. We have heard counsel for the parties and, with their assistance, have
gone through the voluminous record. The case set up by the Prosecution is that
on 29.4.1999, a party was organized at the Tamarind Court inside Qutub
Colonade. This party was a private one where people were invited and the
invitees could further invite guests. Liquor was being served. Jessica Lal and
Shyan Munshi were in-charge of the bar. At this party, Respondents 1 to 4 came
after the party was over and began looking for liquor. They were refused liquor
since the bar was closed. Not being satisfied with this explanation, they went
around in pursuit thereof and ultimately came back to the restaurant where they
were once again refused liquor, here Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma took
out a pistol and fired the first shot into the ceiling and the next shot at Jessica
Lal. The shot hit Jessica Lal in the head and proved fatal. Manu Sharma was,
more or less, simultaneously stopped by Beena Ramani and questioned as to
why he had shot Jessica Lal? She also demanded he give her the gun. She
followed the assailant in an attempt to corner him but then told her husband to

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

identify the vehicle in which he may make his escape. To prove this part of the
case, the Prosecution pressed into service PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, PW-2,
Shyan Munshi, PW-6, Malini Ramani, PW-19, Andleep Sehgal, PW-20, Beena
Ramani, PW-24, George Mailhot, PW-23, Rouble Dunglay, PW-70 Rohit Bal,
PW-9, Dr. R.K. Sharma, PW-46 Madan Lal and PW-47, Jatinder Raj.

29. PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani has deposed that on 29.4.1999 he had gone to
attend the aforesaid party at about 11.00 p.m. at the open area of Qutub
Colonnade known as ?Tamarind Court?, the closed area called as ?Tamarind
Cafe?. He had purchased four coupons of Rs.100/- each on that day. Jessica Lal
and Shyan Munshi were serving liquor on that night at the bar counter. He knew
Jessica Lal for the past six years whereas Shyan Munshi was introduced by
Jessica Lal to this witness about a week before. The bar counter was located in
Tamarind Cafe open area between the two doors of Tamarind Court. He has
deposed that there is a permanent bar counter in Tamarind Cafe but being
summer, nobody was using the bar counter giving preference to the bar counter
located outside. A large crowd was in attendance at the aforesaid party. At
around 1 O'clock midnight, the witness went to the bar counter to have his third
drink when Jessica Lal told him to encash all his coupons since the liquor was
running out. The witness then handed over another coupon and purchased two
pegs of whisky. While he was holding two glasses of whisky, he came in contact
with a person having fair complexion who was smiling. The witness
reciprocated and both introduced each other. This fair complexion person gave
his name as 'Manu Sharma' and inquired as to how the witness had two glasses
of whisky when Manu Sharma was unable to get even one. Manu Sharma
requested the witness to arrange liquor for him. But this witness showed his
inability as the bar had closed. Just about that time, a tall Sikh gentleman
whispered something to Manu Sharma and took him away towards Tamarind
Cafe. The witness says he can identify Manu Sharma and the tall Sikh
gentleman referred to above. In court, the witness correctly identified both Manu
Sharma and the tall Sikh gentleman as 'Tony Gill'. The witness also identifies the
other person accompanying Tony Gill. In Court he pointed towards Alok
Khanna. The witness goes on to depose that Manu Sharma, Tony Gill and Alok
Khanna and others had gone towards Tamarind Cafe even though it was closed
and the waiters were in the process of removing the empty bottles. After about
10-20 minutes i.e. around 1.45 a.m. he heard noise emerging from Tamarind
Cafe to the effect that Jessica Lal had been shot. At that time, the witness was
present at Tamarind Court and was talking to his friend, Arash Aggarwal. On
hearing that Jessica Lal had been shot, he rushed towards Tamarind Cafe but
could not go inside, yet peeped and saw Jessica lying on the floor. The witness
says that about that time 70-80 persons gathered around the gate of Tamarind
Cafe. Jessica Lal was carried to Ashlok Hospital, Safdarjang Enclave and this
witness followed in his car. He remained there for about and-and-half hours.
Jessica Lal was then shifted to Apollo Hospital. This witness went along to
Apollo Hospital. At the hospital, Jessica Lal was declared 'brought dead'. The
witness says about 10 photographs were shown to him to identify the fair

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

complexion person and the Sardar. From amongst them he identified the
photographs of Manu Sharma and Tony Gill. The photograph of Manu Sharma
was marked 'A' and that of Tony Gill was marked 'B'. The Investigating Officer
put his signature behind the photographs. These photographs were then
identified by the witness in court as Ex. PW-1/A and PW-1/B.

30. In cross-examination, the witness's credibility was sought to be

questioned by contradicting him with his previous statements. In other words,
the exact wording used in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement were put to him which
differ from the statement made in Court but the overall impact of the statement
was not such as could show the witness in poor light. The criticism of the trial
court to the deposition of this witness appears to be self-contradictory. The
learned Judge relies upon PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, to establish the presence of
accused 1 to 4 at the spot of occurrence on the night of 29/30.4.1999, yet goes
on to agree with the counsel for the accused that PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, has
been introduced as a false witness in this case. The reasoning is that he does not
find mention in the list of invitees prepared by PW-2, George Mailhot although
Deepak Bhojwani is stated to have been very friendly with Jessica Lal. Another
aspect is that PW-73, Sabrina Lal, did not mention that PW-1, Deepak
Bhojwani, was present at Ashlok Hospital. Further that the statement of Deepak
Bhojwani was recorded on 14.5.1999 and that Deepak Bhojwani is an interested
witness. With very great respect to the learned Judge, we may point out that this
manner of testing the credibility of the witness is hardly a rule of appreciation of
evidence. It is not necessary that every witness must see the other and only then
can they be relied upon. Each witness deposes to what he saw or what he did.
Merely because out of 100 people present, some witness does not see the other
witness is no ground to discard his evidence. Even if his name did not figure in
the list of invitees is of no consequence since the list was not exhaustive.
Deepak Bhojwani has deposed to the factual aspect to which he was a witness.
This part has been sufficiently corroborated in its own way by other witnesses,
namely, the presence of accused 1 to 4 at the place of occurrence. The trial court
itself relies upon this witness to show the presence of the accused persons and
yet goes on to hold him as bad witness. Obviously, this reflects total lack of
application of mind and suggests a hasty approach towards securing a particular
end, namely, the acquittals. This witness states that Jessica Lal and Shyan
Munshi were serving liquor on that night at the bar counter which stands
corroborated by other witnesses. He met the fair complexion man who
exchanged niceties with him and introduced himself as Manu Sharma. The
presence of Manu Sharma is corroborated by PW-20, Beena Ramani, PW-6,
Malini Ramani and PW-24, George Mailhot. There is nothing to suggest that this
witness had any motive to falsely implicate any of the accused persons. The
witness was wrongly discarded by the trial court. Further, the trial court, if it
actually entertained the issue of Bhojwani being a planted witness could not
have stopped at this. The consequences of false implantation must necessarily
have followed such a finding. In fact, we find from the evidence of Bhojwani
that he did not claim himself to be an eye witness of firing which he could have

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

claimed if he was to depose falsely at the instance of the Police.

31. PW-2, Shyan Munshi, is the maker of the FIR. His testimony has been
attacked as being hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. on the ground that his statement to
the Police was signed, it was used to cross-examine the witness by the
Prosecution itself and, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. It was the
submission of Mr. Jethmalani that really the FIR was the phone call from Rohit
Bal or PCR message to the concerned Police Station which set the criminal
process into motion.

32. We have gone through the testimony of this witness. He has admitted his
presence at the Tamarind Cafe at the time of the incident. He has also admitted
that Jessica Lal was shot at by someone on her refusing to oblige him with a
drink. To this extent, there is no doubt that he has supported the Prosecution's
version. He has, however, deviated from his earlier version before the Police
given by him in the form of his first information statement, Ex. PW-2/A
inasmuch as at that time he had claimed that there was one person only who had
demanded whisky from Jessica Lal and on her refusal to give him whisky he
had first fired towards the ceiling and then a second shot at her while now in
Court he has taken a somersault and come out with a version that there were
two gentlemen at the bar counter, one of whom was wearing a white T- shirt,
which, as per the Prosecution case, Sidhartha Vashishta @ Manu Sharma was
wearing, who demanded whisky from Jessica Lal and when Jessica Lal refused
to give him whisky, he fired a shot towards the ceiling and at that time another
gentleman fired at Jessica Lal which injured her. The witness also claimed in
court that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was not the person who either
fired towards the ceiling or at Jessica Lal. Because of this changed version, he
was cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination,
he was duly confronted with his signed statement, Ex. PW-2/A, wherein he had
categorically claimed that it was only one person who had fired both the shots.
Of course he denied having made any such statement to the Police. However,
we have no manner of doubt that on this aspect he is telling a complete lie. He
has admitted his signatures on the said statement. He has not claimed that Police
officials had exerted any pressure on him to put his signatures on that statement.
All that he is now claiming is that the said statement was recorded in Hindi
while he had narrated the whole story in English as he did not know Hindi at
all. We do not find this explanation of this witness to be convincing. Whether he
had dictated his version to PW-100, SI Sunil Kumar, in English or not has no
significance because SI Sunil Kumar has categorically stated during his
evidence that he had reduced into writing whatever had actually been narrated
to him by this witness. We have no reason to disbelieve SI Sunil Kumar on this
aspect of the matter. We cannot accept that SI Sunil Kumar would have
concocted such a detailed statement on his own without the witness having
actually told the facts to him. There is another reason also for not accepting the
version of Shyan Munshi and that is that even Beena Ramani says that Shyan
Munshi's statement was recorded by the Police in her presence. Apart from that,

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

it is significant to note that the statement of this witness was recorded on 30th
April, 1999 itself and thereafter he never raised any grievance at any time before
any authority that the Police had recorded incorrect version in his statement Ex.
PW-2/A. He has come out with this explanation for the first time in Court and
we have no manner of doubt from the facts and circumstances of this case that
he was won over by the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma. Learned
Additional Solicitor General had pointed out to us the trial court record, about
which no dispute was raised on behalf of the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @
Manu Sharma, where in one of the proceedings recorded by the Additional
Sessions Judge at the time of hearing of bail application of Sidhartha Vashisht @
Manu Sharma, the presence of one Advocate , Ashok Bansal was recorded on
behalf of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma. Shyan Munshi, during his cross-
examination by the Public Prosecutor, has himself admitted that while coming
to Court to depose in this case was escorted by his counsel Mr. Ashok Bansal
who had earlier appeared as counsel for Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma
and also appeared at the time of pronouncement of judgment on 21.2.2006 for
Manu Sharma and other accused as well. This tell tale circumstance leaves no
doubt that the new story this witness has introduced during trial is an
'afterthought' as also a total lie at the instance of the accused. His credibility was
totally impeached during his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. In
these circumstances, we cannot consider this witness to be of any worth,
although we agree with the submission of Mr. Jethmalani that some part of the
evidence of even a hostile witness can be taken into consideration provided it
inspires confidence and he is considered to be a reliable witness. We do not
consider this witness to fall in that category of witnesses. We, therefore, do not
find that the testimony of Shyan Munshi, in any way, can be utilised to the
benefit of the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma. Even if the
deposition of PW-2 is discarded, the case of the Prosecution hardly gets
affected. In this view of the matter we feel it unnecessary to go into the
argument of Mr. Jethmalani that Ex. PW-2/A cannot be treated as an FIR.

33. PW-6 is Malini Ramani, She states that in the year 1999 parties were
organized at Qutub Colonnade. Liquor was consumed at these parties. On
29.4.1999 there was a party at the Qutub Colonnade which was a Thursday. It
was organized to bid farewell to her step father, George Mailhot, who was going
abroad for five months. The witness was at Qutub Colonnade on that evening.
Jessica Lal was also there. Her mother, (Beena Ramani) was also present. Shyan
Munshi was also present. The party was over around 1.00 a.m. approximately
and at about 1.45 a.m. the witness went along with Sanjay Mehtani to the
restaurant to look for something to eat. The witness was holding a drink in her
hand. She found Jessica Lal was there in the restaurant and Shyan Munshi along
with some waiters was also present. She went behind the food counter looking
for something to eat inside the Cafe but could not find anything. In fact,
according to the witness, there was nothing to eat or drink for the last hour or so
and lots of people were asking for more to drink and to eat. While they were
standing at the restaurant, a couple of persons went in. They were about 4 or 5 in

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

number. One of them asked this witness if he could have two whisky. The
gentleman was wearing jeans and white T-shirt. He was in his mid twenties with
fair complexion. His built was on the plump side. The witness showed her
inability to provide liquor as the bar had closed. But he insisted and Jessica Lal
and this witness repeated that the bar was closed. The gentleman said he could
pay for his drinks upon which the witness said that he could not have a sip even
for a thousand rupees. The gentleman retorted saying if that he could have a sip
of her for a thousand rupees. This disgusted the witness who walked out at
which time she came across her mother in the court yard. Her mother was
walking towards the restaurant while this witness was going to the other side of
the courtyard. Shyan Munshi came running to her screaming that Jessica Lal
had been shot. The witness fainted at that time. This witness goes on to say that
she can identify the person who had asked her for drinks and who was wearing
jeans and T-shirt. The accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, was
correctly identified the one that 'looks like him' but later on asserted that he was
the same person. The witness says that she came to know that Jessica Lal had
died at about 6.00 a.m. when she was at home. The information was given to
her by her mother. The witness was grilled extensively in cross-examination and
confronted on various aspects with her statement before the Police, but stood
her ground on whether Manu Sharma asked her for whisky though the exact
words were absent.

34. The testimony of PW-6, Malini Ramani, has been discarded by the trial
court being of little importance. since she was not an eye witness. However, she
is certainly a witness to identifying Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma along
with four or five persons present at the Tamarind Court as also having asked her
for whisky and later misbehaving with her. We find it quite strange that at one
stage the trial court has returned a categorical finding that four accused were
present inside Tamarind Cafe and that finding has been given only on the
evidence of PWs 1, 6, 20 and 24, yet their evidence has been doubted and that
too without even making real analysis of their evidence.

35. The next witness of utmost importance of the case is PW-20, Beena
Ramani. She states that she is the owner of a property near Qutub Minar bearing
No. H-5/6, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi which was acquired in September, 1995.
The property has a shopping arcade in the name of 'Qutub Colonnade', the name
of the restaurant was 'Tamarind Court Cafe' which had a proper licence for
eating house. The licence of the restaurant was in the name of 'Once Upon a
Time' which started business in 1996. She goes on to depose that parties in the
restaurant could be booked on any day as per the desire of the customer, but on
Thursdays there used to be special private parties where guests could come by
invitation. She goes on to say that liquor was served in the courtyard on
Thursday parties. PW-6, Malini Ramani, used to manage these Thursday
parties. The witness further states that she knew Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi
and that there was a proper staff to run the restaurant although friends did help
in the Thursday parties. Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi were friends of Malini

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

Ramani and were helping her on that night. The witness goes on to depose that
on the night of 29.4.1999, a Thursday party was organized to bid farewell to her
husband who was leaving for a found-the-world trip. The party was over by
1/1.30 a.m. These Thursday parties and special parties were organized generally
and were held in the courtyard and on the roof top. After the party was over, she
was anxious to clean up the place and relieve the waiters so that they were
available for proper duties on the following morning. At that time, there were
some guests left in the courtyard and she spotted some guests in the restaurant
where nobody was supposed to be. She walked towards the restaurant. While
she was moving towards the restaurant, she crossed Malini Ramani . She moved
into the steps of the restaurant and saws a few people standing next to the
counter and heard a firing shot. A moment later, she heard another shot. At that
time, Jessica Lal, who was standing with some people at the far end, was seen
by the witness falling down. There was a door to her right which was swung
open with Shyan Munshi coming out with some other person saying that Jessica
had been shot. The witness told Shyan Munshi to call Police or doctor or
ambulance and was stopping the man accompanying him. There was
commotion. All the people who were with Jessical Lal starting coming out. The
companion of Shyan Munshi was wearing a white T-shirt. He was chabbi and
fair and this witness asked him as to who he was and why he was there and also
why he had shot Jessica Lal. The witness also asked him to give her his gun,
which she thought he was having. The person in the white T-shirt denied having
shot yet, the witness goes on to say, she asked him again and he kept quiet
shaking his head that it was not him. As all others were leaving, the person in
the white T-shirt shoved the witness aside and went out. The witness followed
him all the way to the front gate of the main building. She could not catch hold
of this person. In the meantime, she was shouting instructions to guests to call
hospital or to take Jessica Lal. On reaching the gate, she saw her husband
standing there and told him that this was the man who had shot Jessica Lal and
to see in what car he was getting into. The witness goes on to say that the
person who was told to be seen by her husband was with some friends at the
time of occurrence inside the cafe. The witness identified Sidhartha Vashisht @
Manu Sharma by touching him and also went on to identify Amardeep Singh
Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav as the persons along with Manu Sharma.
Further, the witness goes on to say that from the gate she returned to the
restaurant where the waiters had slipped a table cloth under Jessica's body. The
witness continued to give instructions to get medical help for Jessica and
removed her to Ashlok Hospital. Jessica Lal was still alive and was removed to
Ashlok Hospital in the car belonging to Sanjay Mehtani. The witness goes on to
say that the report about the incident was lodged in her presence by Shyan
Munshi. Jessica Lal was then removed to Apollo Hospital where she was
declared dead. A week later, she saw Sidhartha Vashisht at the Police Station

36. This witness was cross-examined by counsel for Sidhartha Vashishta @

Manu Sharma, but to no meaningful end. In other words, her testimony
remained unchallenged. The trial court while dealing with this witness has held

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

that this witness does not further the case of the Prosecution as the witness was
not an eye witness to the occurrence but a witness to the presence of Sidhartha
Vashishta @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas
Yadav at the Qutub Colonnade. The trial court also held that the deposition of
this witness was vague since she thought that Manu Sharma was carrying a gun
and also felt that he may have shot Jessica Lal. The Court also held that mere
feelings were not enough and did not mean that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma had actually fired a shot at Jessica Lal. The trial court further went
totally wrong in holding that PW-20 had admitted not seeing Sidhartha Vashisht
firing a shot at Jessica Lal, but it was only her feeling. With great respect to the
learned Judge, we find this is 'a complete misreading of evidence'. There is no
suggestion let alone an admission on the part of PW-20, Beena Ramani, that she
had not seen the accused Sidhartha Vashisht firing a shot at Jessica Lal. On the
contrary, we find positive assertion by the witness to the following effect : ?I
saw a few people standing next to the counter and I heard a shot. A moment
later, I heard another shot. Jessica Lal was standing with people at the far end
and I saw her falling down. There was a door to my right. It could be swung
open and Shyan Munshi came out with another person who was either ahead of
him or behind him. Shyan Munshi said that Jessica Lal had been shot. I told
Shyan to call the police or doctor or ambulance and I stopped the man
accompanying him. There was commotion. All the people who were with Jessica
Lal earlier, started coming out. The companion of Shyan was wearing white T-
shirt. He was Chabbi and fair and I asked him as to who he was. ?Why are you
here and why he shot Jessica Lal. I also asked him to give me his gun. I thought
he might be having a gun?. He said that it was not him. I asked him again and he
kept quiet and shaking his hand that it was not him. As all others were leaving,
therefore, the companion of Shyan also shoved me aside and went out. I ran
after him. Again said behind him all the way to the front gate of the main
building. He was a few steps ahead of me and I could not catch him. In the
meantime, I was shouting instructions to the guests to call hospital or to take
Jessica Lal. I reached the gate. My husband was standing there and I told him
that this was the man, who had shot Jessica Lal and to see in what car he gets
into.?

37. This statement of Bina Ramani clearly shows that she had herself seen
Sidhartha Vashisht shooting Jessica Lal as otherwise she had no reason to ask
him why he had shot Jessical Lal. The aforesaid view taken by the trial Court
appears to have been taken on a concession made by the Special Public
Prosecutor himself who put forth this argument that it was her feeling that
Manu Sharma might have shot at Jessica Lal and also that she had admitted that
she was not an eye witness. The trial court, however, instead of itself reading
the evidence of Bina Ramani proceeded to wrongly record acceptance of this
submission of the prosecutor. If the evidence of the witness had been read
properly, the Court could not have held that this witness had admitted that she
had not seen Manu Sharma firing at Jessica Lal. There is no suggestion, let alone
an admission on the part of PW-20, Bina Ramani, that she had not seen the

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

accused Sidhartha Vashisht firing a shot at Jessica Lal. This kind of approach of
the trial Court has caused grave miscarriage of justice. There is no doubt that
the Court is not supposed to simply convict someone without any evidence but
at the same time the Court is also to ensure that guilty is not allowed to go scot
free simply by accepting concessions made by the Public Prosecutor.

38. Beena Ramani's presence as an eye witness was sought to be challenged

by recourse to the deposition of PW-46, Madan Kumar, and PW-47, Jatinder
Raj, who were employees at the Qutub Colonnade. It was argued that Madan
Kumar rushed to the spot after hearing 'goli lag gai' and saw Jessica Lal lying
on the floor. Some guests, Beena Ramani and Jatinder Raj were present there.
This part of the deposition is sought to mean that Beena Ramani did not
confront Manu Sharma nor followed him nor asked George Mailhot to keep a
watch on Manu Sharma. However, from an analysis of the testimony of PW-46,
we find that he came to the spot subsequent to the fire. He did not hear the
firing but heard people shouting ?goli lag gai?. It is then that he ran down by
which time Beena Ramani must have returned to the Cafe after confronting
Manu Sharma. This witness certainly deposes to the presence of Beena Ramani
at the spot. He also corroborates Beena Ramani's actions thereafter. PW-47,
Jatinder Raj, has stated that he was counting cash and was tallying the same
when he heard firing of two shots from the side of the Cafe. He saw from the
gate of his office people coming in and going out. At that time he saw Bena
Ramani at the stairs of the cafe. He rushed towards her and both went inside the
cafe. This, by itself, does not show that when the shots were fired, the witness
was along with Beena Ramani in the Cafe. He also came soon after Beena
Ramani had come back to the Cafe. Since he was the in-charge of the cash, he
would have never left the cash unattended or without securing it before running
out. We, therefore, find no substance in the criticism that Beena Ramani was not
present when the shots were fired.

39. From the above it cannot be said that Beena Ramani had not seen
Sidhartha Vashiushth @ Manu Sharma firing at Jessica Lal. On the contrary, it
is a positive statement of the witness that it was Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma who fired at Jessica Lal after which Jessica Lal fell down. The witness
is a witness of events that took place and is an eye witness to the main
occurrence. We have already pointed out that this witness has not been cross-
examined at all on this aspect. A general criticism of the Ramani family has
been made by learned counsel for Manu Sharma that they were under constant
Police pressure and, therefore, were toeing the Police version.

40. We have given our careful thought to this argument and find no
substance in it. The excise case which is being trumpeted as Police pressure,
can hardly be said to be of such a nature as could warrant the entire family
supporting a false or a frivolous case. In any event, in the excise case the
accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced with a fine only. The mere fact that

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

Beena Ramani, Malini Ramani and George Mailhot were called to the Police
Station on several occasions, is no indication of Police pressure to book a false
case and their repeated interrogation cannot be made a ground to discard this
evidence since they were accused in an excise case where investigation was
going on. Their sustained interrogation was necessary because they were
running illegal pub. There were so many VIPs in that illegal pub on the fateful
night. We were told during the arguments by the learned Standing Counsel for
the State that one very senior police officer had also attended that party on 29th
April,1999. So, there was nothing abnormal in the repeated interrogation of the
Ramani family as the police might be wanting to find out who those persons
were and why they were coming to that illegal pub. The argument that the
testimony of PW-20, PW-6 and PW-24 is hit by Section 163 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, though attractive it may sound, is devoid of any merits. From
the analysis of the deposition of PW-20, whom we find a reliable witness and,
in fact, the only brave person present in that party to muster courage to face the
shooter while others who claim to be socialites, did not have the courage to
raise a little finger to apprehend the culprit whom this witness was chasing and
shouting that he was the person who had shot Jessica Lal, the involvement of
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma in the murder of Jessica Lal is writ large. It
was Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma who pulled out his pistol, fired two
shots one in the ceiling and the other at Jessica Lal.

41. Although the case against Sidhartha Vashisht stands fully proved by the
testimony of PW-20 alone, yet we find sufficient corroboration to her testimony
from the deposition of PW-24, George Mailhot, who deposes to the holding of
the Thursday party on the fateful night and goes on to say that around 2.00 a.m.
he was standing in the courtyard near a large tree about 20 feet away from the
restaurant facing opposite the entrance gate of the restaurant when he heard two
popshots like balloon. He turned towards the restaurant door and within few
seconds Shyan Munshi came running saying that someone had shot Jessica. The
witness went towards the restaurant and saw Beena Ramani, PW-20, addressing
a young man who was moving around and Beena Ramani was following him
and saying that ?you are the one, give me the gun?. He identified Sidhartha
Vashisht as the person whom Beena Ramani was following. He also testifies
having followed Sidhartha Vashisht on foot upto Adam Khan's tomb at which
point Sidhartha Vashisht vanished. The witness then went on to the Police
Station to lodge a report where he found that the report had already been
lodged. He came back to Qutub Colonnade and found that Beena Ramani had
already taken Jessica to the hospital. The witness subsequently saw Sidhartha
Vashisht at Police Station Mehrauli.

42. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht, this

witness was primarily cross-examined about his personal background and his
interest in the property called 'Qutub Colonnade' as also about the nature of
parties being organized there on Thursdays as well as on other days of the
week. It was also elicited from him in cross-examination that after the incident,

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

when the Police reached the spot, couple of bottles of liquor were mysteriously
recovered from the restaurant by the Police. Relying on this statement also of
George Mailhot, senior counsel for Sidhartha Vashisht submitted that this
witness himself also wants to convey that the Police had foisted a false excise
case against his family members and because of that they were pressurised to
falsely implicate Sidhartha Vashisht. This argument also cannot be accepted
because admittedly the accused in the excise case had been convicted on their
pleading guilty. A perusal of cross-examination of this witness also shows that
virtually there is no cross-examination on the material aspect of his testimony
in the form of his examination-in-chief except for a general suggestion given by
him at the end of his cross-examination that he had identified accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at the asking of the Investigating Agency which, of
course, he denied categorically. There is no particular challenge to his statement
that his wife, Beena Ramani, was following the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Manu Sharma after the firing incident and on her telling him to follow Manu
Sharma he had followed him upto a place from where he disappeared.
Therefore, this part of the testimony of this witness fully corroborates the
version of Beena Ramani to the effect that she had followed the accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma only after the firing incident. Here again we
may notice that as far as the presence of the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Manu Sharma at the time of the incident at the Qutub Colonnade is concerned,
the trial court itself has accepted the Prosecution's case and categorically held
that he along with his associates was present. We fully endorse that finding of
the trial court and even counsel for the respondents before us, except for making
a half-hearted submission that this finding of the trial court is not supported by
any reasoning, no other cogent reason was given by them to reverse this
categoric finding of the trial court regarding the presence of Sidhartha Vashisht
@ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav at the
spot. It was elicited from him that he had been visiting Police Station almost
every day. It was on account of this statement made by him that it was argued
on behalf of the accused that Ramani family was being pressurised to falsely
implicate Sidhartha Vashisht as otherwise there was no occasion for the Police
for calling Ramani family to the Police Station for days together when they
were material Prosecution witnesses for this murder case. We have already
rejected this argument being devoid of any merit.

43. The identification of the accused in Court by PWs. 1, 6, 20 and 24 was

also challenged by counsel for the respondents on the ground that most of the
witnesses admit that Police had shown them the photos of the culprits during
investigation and for that reason Test Identification Parade was also refused. We
think that on this ground, the evidence of PWs. 1, 6, 20 and 24 cannot be
disbelieved. As per the Prosecution case, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma
could not be traced out till 6.5.1999 on which day only he surfaced after his
friends, Amardeep Singh, Alok Khanna had implicated him for the murder. The
Police from 30.4.1999 itself suspected him and Manu Sharma was evading
Police contacting him for interrogation, suspicion of Police got converted into a

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

positive case of his involvement and in that event, his photo was shown to
witnesses who had been claiming that they would be able to identify the culprits,
there was nothing objectionable in that action of the investigating agency.

44. Regarding the allegation that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was
absconding, his counsel argued that it was false since the moment the co-
accused implicated him on 5.5.1999, Manu Sharma himself surrendered on
6.5.1999 and before that, the Police did not have any evidence against him nor
was he required to appear before the Police. This argument overlooks the fact
that this accused has himself taken a plea that his farmhouse was raided on
30.4.1999 and certain articles were seized from there including his licensed
pistol. This plea demolishes the argument that he was not evading the Police. If
he says that his farmhouse had been raided on 30.4.1999, then he should have
surrendered on the same day itself as he did six days later. He knew before
6.5.1999 that Police was looking for him from 30.4.1999 itself and if he did not
surrender immediately, the only inference which can be drawn by us is that he
was absconding which circumstance can be utilized by the Prosecution to
strengthen its case against him.

45. Another circumstance which substantiates the Prosecution's case

regarding Sidhartha Vashisht's murdering Jessica Lal, is the recovery of Tata
Safari from Noida which was removed from Qutub Colonnade by Amardeep
Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Vikas Yadav. We have evidence on record to show
that Tata Safari No. CH-01-W-6535 was parked at Qutub Colonnade in the night
of 29/30.4.1999. This abandoned car belonged to Piccadilly Agro Industries
Limited of which Manu Sharma was admittedly a director at that time. This
vehicle was stated to be surreptitiously removed and then recovered from
Noida. The criticism that the vehicle was, in fact, recovered from Karnal is
misreading of statement of PW-100. PW-100 does not say that he recovered the
Tata Safari from Karnal but deposes to the effect that the Piccadilly Agro
Industries Limited was registered in Karnal. The Tata Safari was, in fact,
recovered from Noida by U.P. Police and handed over by the court to the Delhi
Police on superdari. The police official from Noida police station PW-91 SI
B.D.Dubey had clearly deposed that he had recovered Tata Safari from Noida
area on 02-05-99. His testimony to this effect has remained unchallenged and
un-controverted. His cross-examination on behalf of accused Vikas Yadav and
Sidhartha Vashisht was confined only to find out whether any finger prints were
lifted from the Tata Safari and whether he was questioned by Delhi Police after
its recovery. Although a suggestion was put to him that he had made a false
statement in connivance with Mehrauli police but we have no reason to accept
that, since no motive has been alleged against this witness for falsely deposing.
It cannot be accepted that everybody on this earth had conspired to falsely
implicate Sidhartha Vashisht nor he has made any such attempt to even
probabilise his false implication. He has claimed that he was falsely implicated
due to political influence but he has not even bothered to name the politician
who could have got him falsely implicated in this case. The accused, at no point

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

of time, made any complaint about missing of the vehicle which he now claims
to have been taken into possession from Karnal.

46. There is yet another strong circumstance showing the involvement of

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma in the murder of Jessica Lal and that
circumstance is that he admits that he was having a licenced pistol of .22 bore.
He is also not disputing that from the place of incident two empty cartridge
cases of .22 bore were recovered by the police as also the fact that the mutilated
lead bullet recovered from the skull of Jessica Lal was of .22 bore. In these
circumstances and particularly when he knew that he had been implicated in this
case for the offence of murder it was for him to have produced his licenced
pistol as also the 25 rounds to show that he could not be involved in the murder
of Jessica Lal in the manner claimed by the prosecution. He has, however,
neither produced his pistol nor the cartridges of that pistol.

47. Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma has taken a plea in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. That there was no occasion for him to have produced
his licensed pistol since the same had been seized by the Police along with the
licence and ammunition from his farmhouse at Sambhalkha on the night of
30.4.1999 itself when a search was conducted there. Support of this plea, which
we find to be an afterthought and a concoction, was sought from the testimony
of yet another hostile witness, PW-44, Shankar Mukhia who is none other than
his own employee on duty at his farmhouse. This witness was examined by the
Prosecution to show that in the evening of 29.4.1999 Sidhartha Vashisht had
gone from the farmhouse in black Tata Safari and then did not come back.
However, he turned hostile and did not support the Prosecution on this aspect.
Despite the fact that he had not supported the Prosecution's allegations involving
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, yet he was cross-examined by defence and
then it was elicited from him that the Police had visited the farmhouse and had
taken away the pistol and the licence of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma.
Credibility of this witness stood fully impeached in his cross- examination by
the Public Prosecutor when he was confronted with his Police statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. If actually any raid had been conducted in the farmhouse of
Mannu Sharma on 30.4.1999 and something had been taken away by the Police,
this witness would have definitely lodged a protest to the effect that the Police
without giving him receipt had removed Manu Sharma's pistol and licence. It is
also significant to note that when during the investigation stage the Police was
seeking Manu Sharma's police remand for recovery of weapon of offence, at
which time he did not claim that the Police had already seized his pistol from
his farmhouse. We find from a reading of the impugned judgment that no such
plea was raised and no finding was returned on this aspect of the matter. We
have no manner of doubt that if this argument had been advanced, it would have
been met with. Before us it was argued by counsel for the appellant that when
the Police had submitted a charge-sheet in Court and had supplied some
document to him, an application was moved before the Magistrate requesting
for supply of a copy of the seizure memo by which the Police had taken away

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

the pistol from his farmhouse on 30.4.1999. Counsel drew our attention to that
application dated 16.8.1999 which, according to the learned Additional Solicitor
General, was clearly a plant in judicial record. There is no reference to any such
application in any of the proceedings of the Magistrate. Not only that, it was
submitted that even if it had been filed, it was only an eye wash, not to be
pursued and, in fact, it was not pursued at all by insisting supply of such an
important seizure memo. We are in full agreement with the submission of the
learned Additional Solicitor General in this regard and have no hesitation in
rejecting this plea of the accused. From the above, there is sufficient evidence to
bring home the guilt of the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma to the
charge of murder of Jessica Lal.

48. The evidence of Ramani family, in particular of Beena Ramani as also

the aforesaid circumstantial evidence have been rejected, with due respect, by
the learned trial Judge, on wholly unsustainable grounds and we have no
hesitation in concluding that the view taken by the learned trial Judge on the
evidence of PW-20, Beena Ramani, PW-6, Malini Ramani and PW-24, George
Mailhot as also regarding the presence of Tata Safari at the spot, its recovery
from Noida with a live .22 bore cartridge could not have been taken at all. The
view taken by the trial court is positively perverse.

49. We find that the Prosecution has led evidence in support of presence of
Tata Safari at Qutub Colonnade by producing PW-30, Home Guard Constable
Sharavan Kumar, who deposes that he accompanied Inspector Surender Sharma
during the investigation of this case on 29/30.4.1999. He joined Inspector
Surender Sharma at the gate of the police station and went to the spot in a
Police gypsy. He was directed to keep vigil at the parking lot so as to ensure
that no cars were removed. He saw five or six vehicles parked there, one of
which was parked separately. He checked and found all the vehicles locked. At
around 3.40 a.m., he noticed a vehicle coming from Qutub side. It was a Tata
Siera of white colour. Two persons were in the front seat. They stopped the
vehicle near the black Tata Safari and began unlocking the same. The witness
tried to stop them but could not and the black Tata Safari No. CH-01-W-6535
was driven away at which time he gave a danda blow to the rear right view glass
of the same. The Tata Siera was being driven by a Sikh gentleman. He identified
the Tata Safari CH-01-W-6535, Ex. PW-30/X. He also identified Vikas Yadav as
the person who drove away Tata Safari and Amardeep Singh Gill as the driver
of the Tata Siera. He was sought to be discredited primarily as being a planted
witness since he was given regular appointment in Delhi Police as a reward for
making a false statement in Court. His evidence is also sought to be discredited
on the ground that he could not have been present at the place where he claims
to have noticed the Tata Safari since in his cross-examination he has admitted
that at the Police Station he had been assigned the duty of handing over one DD
entry in respect of some other incident which was being inquired into by
another Sub-Inspector at a place which was quite far away from the Police
Station. It was contended that in normal course, this witness was supposed to be

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

doing the duty assigned to him and could not be present at the parking lot at
Qutub Colonnade where he claims to have noticed the Tata Safari lying parked
and then being taken away. There is no doubt that this witness admits that he
was given appointment in Delhi Police later on but from this fact it cannot be
inferred that he was rewarded for making a false statement in this case. We see
no reason why the Police should have planted a false witness.

50. The criticism as regards his presence at the spot, has been explained by
the witness himself who says that he was at the gate of the Police Station, the
SHO had come there and taken him along with him to Qutub Colonnade, we
find nothing abnormal in that conduct of a constable when he is being asked by
the SHO to accompany him to a place other than the place for which he was
asked to go by the Duty Officer in connection with some other case. The SHO,
PS Mehrauli also supports PW-30, Sarvan Kumar. The presence of PW-3 is also
deposed to by other Police officials present at the spot.

51. From an analysis of the deposition of PW-30, we find him to be a natural

witness of the case to which he has deposed. We also find the criticism against
him to be a matter of meaningless hair splitting. There is a ring of truth around
the deposition of PW-30 whom we find a reliable witness. The trial court, while
dealing with this witness, has, with great respect, termed him as a 'planted
witness'. This, we find, is not justified from material on record. The cursory
manner in which the witness has been discarded shows a lack of proper
appreciation of evidence. Once a reasonable explanation has been given by a
witness for his presence at the spot, there was hardly any reason to stretch
imagination to belie his presence. Merely because he was assigned to deliver a
DD entry to SI Rishi Pal which, the witness explains, he did not deliver, the
explanation given is logical and ought not to have been disbelieved in this
strange way of assessing the material and discarding it. The findings of
'planting' are very serious observations and cannot be made in such a casual
manner. There must be positive evidence to show that a witness is planted
which must then result in consequential action against the Prosecution rather
than using this merely to give benefit to the accused. Further observation of the
trial court that PW-30 could not have been present in Dera Mandi Village and at
the Qutub Colonnade at the same time, is wholly unfounded. The witness states
that he did not carry the DD entry to SI Rishi Pal. Merely because Rishi Pal
received the DD entry does not conclude that it was delivered to him by
Sharvan Kumar.

52. The other criticism of the learned defence counsel qua the Tata Safari is
that there is no witness who has seen Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma
arriving at the Qutub Colonnade in the Tata Safari. He claimed that the Tata
Safari has been falsely planted by the Prosecution to implicate Manu Sharma.
This criticism, we find, is devoid of substance. PW-30, as we have already
stated, is a trustworthy witness who testifies to the Tata Safari being present and

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

having removed by the co-accused of Manu Sharma. The attempt of learned

counsel to discredit PW-30 by recourse to the evidence of PW-47, Jatinder Raj
and PW-86, Jagannath Jha, is of no consequence. PW-47 who states he did not
see any private vehicle at the gate of the Qutub Colonnade at 3.15 a.m. only
goes to show that he did not observe the presence of Tata Safari but does not rule
out the presence of the Tata Safari. About PW-86's evidence, less said the better.
He is thoroughly unreliable witness. He does not even know the difference
between summer and winter and appears to have been won over by the defence.

53. The presence of Tata Safari at the Qutab Colonnade stands proved from
the material on record. This circumstance lends assurance to the presence of
Manu Sharma at the Tamarind Cafe and corroborates the type of ammunition
used in the commission of the crime, empties whereof were recovered from the
scene of occurrence and a similar live cartridge recovered from the Tata Safari.
We have also noted that Harvinder Chopra does not claim that the Tata Safari
which was allotted to him was missing on the date of incident or that he had
made any report to the effect that somebody had stolen the same from Karnal.
He also does not claim to be in possession of the said vehicle on the night of
29/30.4.1999.

54. From an appreciation of the material placed by the Prosecution on

record, we find that the Prosecution's case that the Tata Safari was left
abandoned by Manu Sharma and was subsequently removed by Vikas Yadav and
Amardeep Singh Gill, stands proved.

55. Much was sought to be made of the report of the ballistic expert, Roop
Singh, who opined that the empties recovered from the spot of the occurrence
appear to have been fired from two weapons. We find from the material on
record that the empties from the spot recovered vide recovery Memo Ex. 100/1
as also the live cartridge recovered from the Tata Safari, Ex.PW-74/A sent for
examination in July, 1999. The report of Roop Singh Ex. PW-89/DB is not
evidenced per se under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code since it was
a photo copy in which case it was incumbent upon the defence to examine Roop
Singh, if they wished to rely upon his opinion. This having not been done,
document Ex. PW-89/DB cannot be pressed into service to put up a case that
two weapons had been used in the commission of the crime. As regards the
second opinion of PW-95, Prem Sagar Manocha, we find that the opinion
categorically states that it is not possible to say whether the cartridges have been
fired from two different weapons. However, following a court question, the
witness seems to have rattled out everything to the contrary to his own report to
support the two weapon theory which was being pressed by the defence. This
witness does not appear to be a trustworthy witness. Once having rendered an
opinion that it was not possible to give a report regarding the empties being
fired from two separate weapons, he could not have testified to the contrary
without specifically carrying out tests for that purpose afresh. The sudden

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

emergence of the work sheets in the court raises grave doubts as to the
trustworthiness of this witness and genuineness of the work sheets. We need
hardly belabour over this so-called scientific evidence since its veracity is not
beyond doubt. The two weapon theory appears to be a concoction to the defence
and a manipulation of evidence in particular that of Shyan Munshi, PW- 2 who,
for the first time in court, introduced such a story. The very fact that the empties
were sent for examination at such a belated stage, cannot rule out the possibility
of foul play to destroy the Prosecution's case during trial. We, therefore, do not
think it necessary to go into further analysis of the evidence of Prem Sagar
Manocha.

56. In the totality of circumstances adduced from material on record, the

judgment under challenge appears to us to be an immature assessment of
material on record which is self-contradictory, based on misreading of material
and unsustainable. We find that Beena Ramani has identified Sidhartha Vashisht
@ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gil, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav to be the
persons present at the Tamarind Cafe at the time of the incidence. She also saw
Manu Sharma firing the fatal shot which hit Jessica Lal. Her testimony finds
corroboration from the testimony of Malini Ramani and George Mailhot. There
is evidence on record to show that Manu Sharma had a licensed pistol of .22
bore which he has not produced to establish his innocence and on the contrary
has taken false plea that the pistol, its ammunition and licence had been
removed by the Police on 30.4.1999. We also find from the material on record
that Manu Sharma abandoned his vehicle while making good his escape. We
also find that the ammunition used in the causing of the firearm injury to Jessica
Lal was of .22 bore which Manu Sharma admittedly possessed and a similar live
cartridge was recovered from the abandoned Tata Safari. From this, we have no
hesitation in holding that Manu Sharma is guilty of an offence under Section
302 IPC for having committed the murder of Jessica Lal on 29/30.4.1999 at the
Tamarind Cafe as also under Section 27 Arms Act.

57. Coming to the case put up by the Prosecution as regards Vikas Yadav and
Amardeep Singh Gill, we have noted above that both these accused were
present at the Tamarind Cafe when Manu Sharma caused firearm injuries to
Jessica Lal. These two persons subsequently were seen by PW-30 Sharvan
Kumar, coming in a white Tata Siera driven by Amardeep Singh Gill from
which Vikas Yadav alighted and surreptitiously removed the Tata Safari which
was being guarded by Sharvan Kumar. The very fact that Vikas Yadav removed
the Tata Safari from Qutub Colonnade is sufficient to bring home his guilt under
Section 201 IPC since he and Amardeep Singh Gill both knowing that an
offence has been committed at the Tamarind Cafe by Manu Sharma caused the
Tata Safari, which is part of the evidence, to be removed with an intention to
screening Manu Sharma. From these circumstances it is evident that the Tata
Safari was removed from outside Qutub Colonnade pursuant to a conspiracy
between Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh Gill and Manu Sharma. Therefore, these
three accused are guilty of having conspired to remove the Tata Safari from

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

Qutub Colonnade and are held guilty under Section 201 read with Section 120-B
IPC.

58. As regards Shyam Sunder Sharma, he was charged for an offence under
Section 212 IPC for harbouring Ravinder Krishan Sudan. We find there is no
incriminating evidence to suggest that Shyam Sunder Sharma ever harboured
Ravinder Krishan Sudan. Even otherwise, Ravinder Krishan Sudan has been
declared a Proclaimed Offender and has not faced trial. This charge against
Shyam Sunder Sharma cannot be sustained. Consequently we uphold his
acquittal under Section 212 IPC as also 201 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua
Shyam Sunder Sharma due to lack of evidence.

59. The case against Harvinder Chopra is that he arranged for the stay of
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at the house of PW-52, Chander Prakash
Chopra, thereby committing an offence under Section 212 IPC. From the
material on record, we find there is no evidence to suggest that Harvinder
Chopra arranged for stay of Manu Sharma at the house of PW-52, Chander
Prakash Chopra. Chander Prakash Chopra himself has not supported the
Prosecution's case. We, therefore, find no evidence to convict Harvinder Chopra
of the offence under Section 212 IPC. Consequently we uphold his acquittal
under Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Harvinder Chopra.

60. The case against Yog Raj Singh is that he facilitated Sidhartha Vashisht
@ Manu Sharma being taken to Khera, Muktsar in Punjab and harboured
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma. To substantiate this case, the Prosecution
examined PW-53, PW-64 and PW-65. We find that none of these witnesses have
supported the Prosecution's case and there is no other evidence on record which
suggests that Yog Raj Singh is guilty of harbouring Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma at Khera in Muktsar (Punjab). Consequently we uphold his acquittal
under Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Yog Raj Singh.

61. The case against Vikas Gill was that he was charged for escorting
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma to Panchkula between 30.4.1999 and
1.5.1999 and harboured him with the intention to screening him from legal
punishment. We find from the record that there is no evidence to the effect that
Vikas Gill took Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma to Panchkula from Delhi
and/or harboured him at any place. Consequently we uphold his acquittal under
Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Vikas Gill.

62. The case against Raja Chopra is that he provided a conveyance to

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma within the meaning of Section 52A IPC in
order to screen him from legal punishment. From the material on record we find
no admissible evidence to substantiate the charge against this accused.
Consequently we uphold his acquittal under Section 212 IPC and dismiss the
appeal qua Raja Chopra.

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer

 website : www.ebc-india.com

63. As regards the case against Alok Khanna, he was charged under Section
120-B read with Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of Tata Safari from
Qutub Colonnade. We find there is no evidence to link Alok Khanna with the
conspiracy to remove or destroy evidence. No doubt, his car was used by
Amardeep Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav to go to Qutub Colonnade to remove the
Tata Safari, but this in itself is not sufficient to hold that Alok Khanna consented
to or was a part of the conspiracy shared by Amardeep Singh Gill with Vikas
Yadav to remove the Tata Safari from the Qutub Colonnade. In that view of the
matter, we find that the Prosecution has not been able to bring home its case
against Alok Khanna, The appeal qua Alok Khanna is dismissed.

64. We may also note here that Ravinder Krishan Sudan and Dhanraj were
declared Proclaimed Offender by the trial court. Their case is not before us. 63.
In the above analysis, while holding Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma guilty
under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Jessica Lal as also under Section 27
Arms Act and Section 201/120B IPC, we also hold Amardeep Singh Gill and
Vikas Yadav guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC/120-B IPC
while upholding the acquittal of the remaining respondents of the offences
charged against them. Accused Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Vikas
Yadav and Amardeep Singh Gill be taken into custody forthwith and lodged in
Central Jail, Tihar. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Copyright© 2006, Practical Lawyer