Page |1

FINAL DRAFT OF LEGAL RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY
JESSICA LAL’S MURDER CASE

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

MITHAPUR, PATNA (800001)
SESSION

2018-2023

Submitted by: Submitted to:

RISHAV KUMAR Mr. VIJAYANT SINHA

ROLL NO. 1962 (Faculty of legal research methodology)

 Page |2

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A., LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“JESSICA LALS MURDER CASE” submitted at Chanakya National Law University is an
authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of Mr. VIJAYANT SINHA. I
have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible
for the contents of my Project Report.

SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE

NAME OF CANDIDATE : RISHAV KUMAR

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA.

 Page |3

This Photo by Unknown Author is

licensed under CC BY-SA-NC

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

 Page |4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty MR. VIJAYANT SINHA whose guidance helped
me a lot with structuring my project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me

immensely with materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t
have completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands
that helped me out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU,

NAME: RISHAV KUMAR

COURSE: B.A., LL.B (Hons.)

ROLL NO: 1962

SEMESTER: 1st
 Page |5

Table of Contents

CHAPTER=1 ......................................................................................................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER= 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 8
INCIDENT......................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER = 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 10
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS ..................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER = 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 13
ACTION TAKEN BY P0LICE...................................................................................................... 13
FIRST TRAIL ................................................................................................................................. 13
Shayan munshi's testimony ........................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER = 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 15
ACQUITTAL BY LOWER COURT ............................................................................................ 15
The ground for the acquittals according to the court .............................................................. 15
CHAPTER = 6 ..................................................................................................................................... 16
ROLE OF PRESS AND MEDIA ................................................................................................... 16
TRAIL BY MEDIA..................................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER = 7 ..................................................................................................................................... 19
ROLE OF JUDICIARY ................................................................................................................. 19
The only inference ....................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER = 8 ..................................................................................................................................... 23
OTHER CASES .............................................................................................................................. 23
OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER = 9 ..................................................................................................................................... 28
LANDMARK CAMPAIGN ........................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER = 10 ................................................................................................................................... 30
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 33
 Page |6

CHAPTER=1

INTRODUCTION

During the early hours of April 30,1999, a thirty-four-year-old model named Jessica Lal was
shot and killed at a private party in a South Delhi restaurant, allegedly for refusing to serve
liquor to a guest after the bar had closed. The man in question was identified by three eye
witnesses as Manu Sharma, the son of a senior Congress Party politician and former Union
minister. After several days in hiding, Sharma surrendered to authorities in Chandigarh. In an
interview with police that was subsequently broadcast on national television, Sharma confessed
to the murder. This confession was later retracted, and a plea of non-guilty entered at trial.
During the trial the three critical eye witnesses recanted earlier statements made to the police,
and twenty-nine witnesses of lesser importance did the same. One of the eye witnesses, Shayan
Munshi, changed his testimony so completely that his revised statement was used as
exculpatory evidence by the defense.

Sharma and eight other codefendants were acquitted of all charges in February 2006, resulting
in a public outcry against what was perceived to be a gross miscarriage of justice. During the
weeks that followed the verdict, petitions were circulated, protest marches organized, and
candlelight vigils held. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh publicly expressed concern at the
general phenomenon of witnesses changing their testimony, in an oblique reference to the
Jessica Lal case. President Abdul Kalam received a petition of 200,000 names collected by
journalists at NDTV and promised action. The decision was appealed to the Delhi High Court
 Page |7

by the prosecution in March, and in December the lower court ruling was reversed with respect
to three of the defendants. Manu Sharma was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in
prison, and two other defendants were convicted for conspiracy and destruction of evidence.
(The verdict has been appealed to the Supreme Court, but Sharma remains in prison.) Shayan
Munshi and other prosecution witnesses who turned hostile during the trial currently face
possible charges of perjury.1

1
For a collection of contemporaneous news reports from the earliest stages of the case to the present day, see
http://www.rediff.com/news/jessica.html. The Delhi High Court decision is available online as Criminal Appeal
No. 193 of 2006 at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/.
 Page |8

CHAPTER= 2

INCIDENT

On 29 April 1999, Lal was one of several models working at an unlicensed bar at a party in the
Tamarind Court restaurant, which was within the Qutub Colonnade, a refurbished palace
overlooking the Qutub Minar in Mehrauli. By midnight the bar had run out of liquor and it
would, in any event, have ceased sales at 12.30 am. After midnight, Manu Sharma walked in
with his friends and demanded to be served liquor. Lal refused to serve Manu Sharma, who
was with a group of three friends. He was ready to offer Jessica ₹ 1000 for it. Sharma then
produced a .22 calibre pistol and fired it twice: the first bullet hit the ceiling which was to serve
as a warning to Jessica not to refuse liquor, but when Jessica refused again, Sharma fired again
and the second hit Jessica in the head and killed her.2 3 4

A melee followed the shooting, during which Sharma and his friends — Amardeep Singh Gill,
Vikas Yadav, and Alok Khanna — left the scene. Thereafter, it was reported that contact could
not be made with Sharma's family, including his mother, and that they were "absconding".5
After eluding police for a few days, with the assistance of accomplices, Khanna and Gill were
arrested on 4 May and Sharma on 6 May. The murder weapon was not recovered and was
thought to have been passed on to a friend who had been visiting from the US and who may
subsequently have returned there.

The case by now involved several prominent people. Manu Sharma himself was the son of
Venod Sharma, who at the time of the shooting was a former minister of the national
government and by the time of the subsequent trial was a minister in the Haryana state
government. Yadav was the son of another state politician, D. P. Yadav. Beena Ramani, who
had redeveloped the premises where the party took place, was a socialite and fashion designer

2
Murder of a Model, India Today, 17 May 1999.
3
Manu Sharma, Vikas Yadav charged with Jessica Lal's murder, Rediff.com, 3 August 1999.
4
Bina Ramani held, let off. Husband, daughter also in Excise net The Tribune, 9 May 1999
5
Former minister's family absconding after model's murder, Rediff.com, 3 May 1999.
 Page |9

who allegedly had contacts in high places and whose daughter Malini Ramani knew Lal as a
fellow-model. Singh managed the distribution of Maaza in Chandigarh.6

Amit Jhigan, an accomplice of Sharma, was arrested on 8 May and charged with conspiring to
destroy evidence, as it was believed that he had retrieved the pistol from its original hiding
place near the bar. While he was remanded in custody, Yadav was still at large and it had also
proved impossible to locate his father, who had promised to deliver his son to the police.

It had by now become clear that the party, which was claimed to be a farewell function for
Ramani's husband, George Mailhot, had in fact been open to anyone willing to pay. Ramani,
her husband, and her daughter Malini were arrested on the same day as Jhigan. They were
charged with operating an illegal bar and, although released on bail, had to surrender their
passports. There were several lines of inquiry regarding the family, including whether or not
Ramani — a UK national — had the necessary permits to operate a business in India. Another
concern was to establish whether or not she had concealed evidence by ordering the cleaning
up of blood at the premises, although by 19 May it had been announced that charges relating
to this alleged destruction of evidence could not be brought.7

Yadav presented himself to Delhi police on 19 May but was able immediately to leave because
he had acquired anticipatory bail papers. He claimed to have been in Mumbai and elsewhere
during the previous few weeks and refused to comment regarding whether he had been in
contact with his father. He admitted that Sharma had stayed with him on the night of the murder
but denied being present himself at the Tamarind Club or having any knowledge of the events
that had occurred there until the next day, when he told Sharma to surrender to the police. A
complex legal situation involving his paperwork meant that the police did not arrest Yadav at
that time.

Subsequently, he had short spells in custody and longer periods when he was freed on bail,
with decisions and over turnings of them being made in various court hearings. 8 9

6
Model's murderer continues to elude dragnet, Rediff.com, 3 May 1999.
7
Vikas Yadav surrenders, yet escapes arrest, Rediff.com, 19 May 1999.
8
Vikas Yadav is on the run again, Rediff.com, 9 July 1999.
9
Vikas Yadav granted bail in Jessica murder case, Rediff.com, 21 May 2001.
 P a g e | 10

CHAPTER = 3

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

April 29-30 1999: Jessica shot at a party in Qutub Colonnade restaurant in south Delhi.

April 30, 1999: Doctors at Apollo Hospital declare Jessica brought dead.

May 2, 1999: Delhi Police recover Tata Safari car belonging to Manu Sharma, son of Haryana
Congress leader Venod Sharma, from Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

May 6, 1999: Manu surrenders before a court in Chandigarh. Subsequently, ten other co-
accused including Vikas Yadav, son of UP politician D.P. Yadav, arrested.

August 3, 1999: Charge sheet filed against accused for killing Jessica under various sections
of IPC.

January 31, 2000: Magistrate court commits the case to a Sessions court for trial.

November 23, 2000: Sessions court frames charges for murder against nine persons and
discharges one accused Amit Jhingan while declaring Ravinder Sudan alias Titu as proclaimed
offender.
May 2, 2001: Court starts recording of prosecution evidence. Deepak Bhojwani, an eye witness
deposes before the trial court.

May 3, 2001: Complainant and eye witness Shayan Munshi turns hostile and fails to identify
Manu in court
.
May 5, 2001: Another eye witness Shiv Das, an electrician at Qutub Colonnade, turns hostile.

May 16, 2001: Third key witness Karan Rajput turns hostile.

July 6, 2001: Malini Ramani, eyewitness, identifies Manu.

 P a g e | 11

October 12, 2001: Socialite Beena Ramani, owner of the restaurant and bar, identifies Manu.

October 17, 2001: George Mailhot, Ramani’s Canadian husband, deposes and identifies
Manu.

July 20, 2004: Surinder Sharma, controversial investigating officer in the case, deposes after
returning from U.N. assignment in Kosovo.

February 21, 2006: Trial court acquits all nine accused due to lack of evidence against them.

March 13, 2006: Delhi Police file appeal in the high court.

October 3, 2006: High Court begins hearing on appeal on a day-to-day basis.

November 29, 2006: High Court reserves its verdict.

December 18, 2006: High Court convicts Manu, Vikas Yadav and Amardeep Singh Gill alias
Tony and acquits Alok Khanna, Vikas Gill, Harvinder Singh Chopra, Raja Chopra, Shyam
Sunder Sharma and Yograj Singh.

December 20, 2006: High Court awards life imprisonment term to main convict Manu Sharma
with a fine of Rs. 50,000 and sentences co-convicts Amardeep Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav to
four years’ prison term with Rs. 3,000 fine each.

February 2, 2007: Manu Sharma appeals in the Supreme Court.

March 8, 2007: Supreme Court admits Manu Sharma’s appeal.

November 27, 2007: Supreme Court rejects Manu Sharma’s bail plea.

May 12, 2008: Supreme Court again rejects Manu Sharma’s bail plea.

January 19, 2010: Supreme Court commences hearing on Manu Sharma’s appeal.
 P a g e | 12

February 18, 2010: Supreme Court reserves verdict on the appeal of Manu Sharma.

April 19, 2010: Supreme Court upholds conviction and life term of Manu.
May 4, 2011: High Court reserves judgement on whether to prosecute 19 witnesses including
Munshi on the charge of perjury for turning hostile.

May 22, 2013: High Court orders perjury proceedings of Munshi and ballistic expert P.S.
Manocha and absolves 17 other witnesses of the charge
 P a g e | 13

CHAPTER = 4

ACTION TAKEN BY P0LICE

on 3rd August1999, Delhi police filed the charge sheet in the court of metropolitan magistrate,
where Manu Sharma was named the main accused charged under section 302, 201, 120(b) and
212 of Indian penal code and sections 27,54 and 59 of arms act. While other accused, like Vikas
Yadav, Coca-Cola Company officials Alok Khanna and Amardeep Singh Gill (destroying
evidence of the case and conspiracy); were all charged variously under sections 120(b), 302,
201 and 212 of the IPC (for giving shelter to the accused and destroying evidence).

FIRST TRAIL

The Jessica Lal murder case went up for trial in August 1999, with Manu charged with murder
and his friends charged with related crimes such as destroying evidence and sheltering criminal
suspects. Four of the witnesses who had initially said they had seen the murder happen
eventually turned hostile. Shayan Munshi, a model and friend who was serving drinks beside
Jessica Lal, changed his story completely; as for earlier testimony recorded with the police, he
said that the writing was in Hindi, a language he was not familiar with, and it should be
repudiated. Karan Rajput and Shivdas Yadav also had not seen anything, while Parikshit Sagar
said he had left the place before the incident. In a conversation with the sister of Jessica, Karan
Rajput is alleged to have played a tape-recording discussing with some friends how Venod
Sharma's people had "won over" several witnesses already. Also, it appears that the cartridges
used in the murder were altered. Although the gun was never recovered, these cartridges were
 P a g e | 14

for some reason sent for forensic evaluation, where it turned out that they had been fired from
different weapons. This led to a further weakening of the prosecution case.

Shayan munshi's testimony

Shayan Munshi is the son of a well-known ophthalmologist in Kolkata, where he studied at the
reputed Don Bosco School. An aspiring model and an acquaintance of Jessica’s, Munshi was
serving behind the bar with Jessica when the shooting occurred. In his initial statement he said
unequivocally that Manu Sharma had fired the gun twice, once into the air, and once at Jessica.
This testimony was recorded by the police in their First Information Report (FIR), which
Shayan signed. However, during the trial he claimed that he did not know Hindi and that he
was not aware of what he had signed. At the trial, Shayan said that Manu Sharma had fired
only once, and that also into the air. He described Manu's clothes carefully. Subsequently, he
said that another bullet, fired by someone else, was the one to hit Jessica. About this man's
dress, he was evasive, and saying only that he was wearing a "light-colored “shirt. This led to
the "two-gun theory" - where the forensic report said that the bullets were fired from different
weapons. Following the acquittal, there was intense pressure on Shayan Munshi, who was
already had a successful modeling career. He was involved in hosting a cooking show.
 P a g e | 15

CHAPTER = 5

ACQUITTAL BY LOWER COURT

After extensive hearings with nearly a hundred witnesses, a Delhi trial court headed by
Additional Sessions Judge S. L. Bhayana, acquitted 9 accused in Jessica Lal Murder case, on
February 21, 2006. Those acquitted were, Manu Sharma, Vikas Yadav, Manu's uncle Shyam
Sundar Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khanna, both former executives of a
multinational soft drinks company, cricketer Yuvraj Singh's father Yograj Singh, Harvinder
Chopra, Vikas Gill and Raja Chopra. In all, of the 12 accused, two, Ravinder Kishan Sudan
and Dhanraj, were absconding while the trial court discharged Amit Jhingan at the time of
framing of charges.

The ground for the acquittals according to the court

The police failed to recover the weapon which was used to fire at Jessica Lal as well as prove
their theory that the two cartridges, emptied shells of which were recovered from the spot, were
fired from one weapon, all three eyewitnesses listed by the police in its charge sheet, namely,
Shiv Lal Yadav, an electrician at Tamarind Court, actor Shayan Munshi and Karan Rajput, a
visitor at the restaurant that night, turning hostile during the trial, in addition to this the police
also failed to establish a complete chain of the circumstances leading to the incident and trace
the murder weapon which according to it, was used in the crime.

Throughout his 179-page case verdict, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) S L Bhayana said that
police sought to 'create' and 'introduce false evidence' against Sharma. The judgment repeatedly
hints that the prosecution may have attempted, from the very beginning, to fabricate the
evidence and present false witnesses, to render the case indefensible. In conclusion, he agrees
with "the counsel for the accused that on April 30, 1999 the police had decided to frame the
accused”.

The judgment faulted the police for deciding on the accused first and then collecting evidence
against him, instead of letting the evidence lead them to the murderer. Since the prosecution
had failed to establish guilt beyond doubt, all nine accused were acquitted.
 P a g e | 16

CHAPTER = 6

ROLE OF PRESS AND MEDIA10

The relation between media and democracy lies deeply related and inter connected in a
democratic country like India. As the Preamble of the Indian Constitution grants the people of
India the “Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship” and “Equality of status and
of opportunity”, it’s our right to express our views and opinions for or against something. But
most of the times, this right is unconditionally withheld and abnegated. It’s quite ironical and
deplorable when such a condition occurs in the largest democratic country in the world. The
people’s representatives are not fairly chosen to enjoy the power they are granted by the
common man; but to safeguard and protect the rights and equality of the people. However, the
status has under gone an implausible change that all the rights and duties each citizen of India
should harmoniously experience, and practice is pulled to the tough magnetic power in the
hands of the wealthy, the influential and the powerful. In Article 19, the Indian Constitution
guarantees the Freedom of speech and expression, in which lies the power of media. Mass
media does not just stand for encircling the news. It is genuinely opening a way of
communication among people across various strata of the society. In a democratic country,
what the media speaks out is in fact the voice of the common man. When justice, equality and
freedom is seized away from the public, media communicates for them. The Jessica Lal murder
case in Delhi that stirred a huge wave of mass protest with the support of media is literally and
precisely a representation of the partiality exhibited by the governing system among the
powerful and the incapable. India witnessed the most shameful judgment ever in February 2006
when the culprit, Manu Sharma, son of Vinod Sharma, a cabinet minister then, was acquitted
in the lower courts, with the explanation of fail in the submission of proper witnesses and
evidences.

10
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l237-Trial-By-Media.html
 P a g e | 17

On 9 September 2006, a sting operation by the news magazine Tehelka was shown on the TV
channel STAR News. This appeared to show that witnesses had been bribed and coerced into
retracting their initial testimony. Venod Sharma was named in the exposé as one who had paid
money to some of the witnesses.11 Facing pressure from the central Congress leaders, Venod
Sharma resigned from the Haryana cabinet. 12

The case finally received its deserved judgment from the Supreme Court on April 2010. The
life time imprisonment sentenced for Manu Sharma was the key result of the attempts of the
country’s whole media clan which stood upholding the truth Jessica’s family had to bring out
to the senses of the public and the judiciary. The Hindi movie No One Killed Jessica written
and directed by Raj Kumar Gupta in 2011, unfolds this case and clearly portrays the inevitable
role played by the media in creating a huge mob outcry resulting in the quick judgment. The
character Meera Gaiti carried out by Rani Mukherjee, stands as a prototype of media and Vidya
Balan plays the role of Sabrina Lal, sister of Jessica Lal who dedicated her whole life for the
achievement of the right verdict for her sister’s murderers. The film has received wide critical
appreciation and awards under many categories.

After the verdict many experts pointed fingers at the flaws in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872,
especially Sections 25-29: No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a
police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as
against such person. Though, the clauses were initially added for the protection of the
defendants from giving confession under police torture, it was later exploited by many a guilty
defendant as well, as in this case, where many a witness withdrew their testimony, after first
giving it to the police during interrogation. After an immense uproar, hundreds of thousands e-
mailed and SMSed their outraged-on petitions forwarded by media channels and newspapers
to the president and other seeking remedies for the alleged miscarriage of justice.

11
Transcript of the news expose "Case Ke Kaatil", produced by Tehelka, and aired on STAR News
(translation)". STAR News/Tehelka. 26 September 2006. Retrieved 7 October 2006.
12
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Venod-Sharma-resigns-from-Haryana-
ministry/articleshow/2105118.cms
 P a g e | 18

TRAIL BY MEDIA13

The media has again come in focus in its role in the trial of Jessica lal murder case. The concept
of media trial is not a new concept. The role of media was debated in the Priyadarshini Mattoo
case and likewise many other high-profile cases. There have been numerous instances in which
media has been accused of conducting the trial of the accused and passing the ‘verdict’ even
before the court passes its judgment. Trial is essentially a process to be carried out by the courts.
The trial by media is definitely an undue interference in the process of justice delivery. Before
delving into the issue of justifiability of media trial it would be pertinent to first try to define
what actually the ‘trial by media’ means. Trial is a word which is associated with the process
of justice. It is the essential component on any judicial system that the accused should receive
a fair trial. The newspapers and the other media channels have quite been rejoicing over their
‘success’ in bringing Jessica lal to justice The trial court had acquitted Manu Sharma of all the
charges depending upon the obvious lacunae in the prosecution case. The High Court however
reversed the trial court judgment.

13
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l237-Trial-By-Media.html
 P a g e | 19

CHAPTER = 7

ROLE OF JUDICIARY

On 25 March 2006, the Delhi High Court admitted an appeal by the police against the Sharma
and eight others and restraining them from leaving the country. This was not a re-trial, but an
appeal based on evidence already marshalled in the lower court. The trial court had acquitted
Manu Sharma of all the charges depending upon the obvious lacunae in the prosecution case.
The High Court however reversed the trial court judgment.

The High Court has interpreted the evidence given by the witnesses differently as clear from
the following sentence:

“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”

Basically, what the high court did was do so just undo what the trial court had done.

“The testimony of 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.”

The High Court held Beena Ramani’s testimony to be clinching evidence against the accused.
Then the court proceeded to view the testimony given by the other witnesses in the light of in
its own interpretation placed upon the statement of Beena Ramani.
 P a g e | 20

“This witness was cross-examined by counsel for Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, but to
no meaningful end. In other words, her testimony remained unchallenged. The trial court while
dealing with this witness has held 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 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 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
Beena Ramani, that she had not seen the accused Sidhartha Vashisht firing a shot at Jessica
Lal.”

The court found the testimony of Beena Ramani alone enough for convicting Manu Sharma for
the murder of Jessica Lal. If we try to see through the judgment of the High Court, we can see
that the high court is proceeding with the assumption that Manu Sharman is guilty. The high
court links all the evidence together and does not consider the various lacunae in the
prosecution case. The court has clearly been influenced by the popular opinion and the media
publicity of the case.

On 19 April 2010, The Supreme Court confirmed the Delhi High court judgment awarding life
imprisonment to Manu Sharma, son of senior Congress leader and former Union Minister
Vinod Sharma, in the Jessica Lal murder case.

A Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and Swatanter Kumar, dismissing three appeals, said: “The
prosecution has established its case beyond doubt against the appellants [Sharma and two
others] and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.”

The Bench said the High Court had rightly convicted the other accused also, Amardeep Singh
Gill and Vikas Yadav, and awarded four-year rigorous imprisonment.

According to the prosecution, Jessica Lal was shot dead by Manu Sharma on the night of April
29-30, 1999 at Qutub Colonnade, also called Tamarind Cafe restaurant, owned by Beena
 P a g e | 21

Ramani, where a Thursday party was held. While the trial court in February 2006 acquitted the
accused, the High Court in December 2006 convicted the accused.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “The evidence regarding the actual incident,
the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence connecting the vehicles and cartridges to the accused
— Manu Sharma, as well as his conduct after the incident prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The High Court has analyzed all the evidence and arrived at the correct conclusion.”

The Bench relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses Deepak Bhojwani, a businessman; model-
turned-actor Shayan Munshi, fashion designer Malini Ramani, her mother Beena Ramani,
George Mailhot (husband of Beena) and fashion designer Rohit Bal, who were at the party
when Jessica was shot at.

“The presence of the accused [Manu Sharma] at the scene of crime is proved through the ocular
testimonies of prosecution witnesses which were corroborated by the three calls made to the
police control room after the incident.

The only inference

The evidence of witnesses, if read in whole in conjunction and in harmony with what was stated
by one another, would show the chain of circumstances of evidence leading to only one
inference — guilt of the accused, the Bench said. It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
Manu Sharma absconded after the incident — a relevant conduct under the Evidence Act.

On the contention that he was innocent and that the High Court ought not to have reversed the
acquittal, the Bench said the appellate court had all the powers to re-evaluate the evidence let
in before the trial court as well as the conclusions reached.

“In this case, the High Court, by adhering to all the ingredients and by giving cogent and
adequate reasons, reversed the order of acquittal.”

Ram Jethmalani, senior counsel for Manu Sharma, had argued that the appellant had been
specifically targeted and maligned before and during the proceedings by the media, which
proclaimed him guilty even after the acquittal by the trial court.
 P a g e | 22

Rejecting this argument, the Bench said: “Certain articles and news items appearing in the
newspapers immediately after the date of occurrence did cause certain confusion in the mind
of the public as to the description and number of the actual assailants/suspects. It is unfortunate
that trial by the media did, though to a very limited extent, affect the accused, but was not
tantamount to a prejudice which should weigh with the court in taking any different view”.
 P a g e | 23

CHAPTER = 8

OTHER CASES

1. The Priyadarshini Mattoo Case14

Priyadarshini Mattoo was a twenty-five year old law student when she was raped, brutally
beaten and strangled to death at her New Delhi residence on January 23,1996. Although there
was no eyewitness to the murder, physical and circumstantial evidence pointed immediately to
Santosh Kumar Singh, the son of a senior police officer then posted in Pondicherry. Singh had
been stalking Mattoo for over a year at the time of the murder, with multiple instances of
harassment having been reported to the police. He was seen outside her residence by a neighbor
immediately prior to the attack, and blood-stained pieces of his motorcycle helmet vizor were
found beside the body. DNA tests confirmed the presence of his semen on her clothes and her
blood on his helmet. What seemed like an open and shut case, however, ended in an acquittal
in 1999. Defence claims that the physical evidence had been tampered with while in police
custody were given enough credence by trial judge to allow for reasonable doubt. Suspicions
were raised by the judge regarding deliberate police misconduct, including false depositions,
traced to the influence of the father of the accused: by the time of the trial Singh’s father was
among the most senior police officers in Delhi. The acquittal triggered massive public outrage,
and the case was appealed to the Delhi High Court in 2000. Little action was taken for several
years, until the 2006 acquittal of Manu Sharma for the Jessica Lal murder led to renewed
scrutiny and a sense of urgency in the part of the Court. The verdict of the lower court was
reversed in October 2006, with the High Court finding that the “circumstantial evidence in the
case is absolutely inconsistent... with the innocence of the respondent.” Justices RS Sodhi and
PK Bhasin observed that the acquittal by the trial judge had “shocked the judicial conscience”
of their Court. Singh was sentenced a few days later to death by hanging.

14
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/priyadarshini-mattoo..

23 | P a g e
 P a g e | 24

24indnews.blogspot.com 24indnews.blogspot.com

24 | P a g e
 P a g e | 25

2. The Nitish Katara Case15

While studying at the Institute of Management Technology in Ghaziabad in 1998, Nitish

Katara became romantically involved with a classmate, Bharti Yadav. Bharti was the daughter
of D.P. Yadav, a major force in Uttar Pradesh politics, and the sister of Vikas Yadav 16, who
was subsequently convicted for destruction of evidence in the Jessica Lal case. Her family
disapproved of the relationship and Katara received multiple threats over the course of their
relationship. On the night of February 2, 2002, Katara attended a wedding at which several
members of Bharti’s family were present. Four witnesses observed him leaving in the company
of three men, including Vikas Yadav and a cousin, Vishal Yadav. Katara’s remains, charred
and battered beyond recognition, were found on a roadside the next morning. Vikas Yadav and
a cousin, Vishal Yadav, went into hiding but were arrested a few days later.

A detailed confession, admitting to the abduction and murder, was recorded by UP police and
aired on national television. Vikas admitted to having killed Nitish with a hammer blow to the
head and setting his lifeless body on fire. He subsequently led police to the spot where the body
had been dumped and the murder weapon concealed. Once the trail began, however, one
witness after another “turned hostile”, including all four witnesses who had earlier reported
having seen Katara depart with Vikas and Vishal Yadav. In testimony before the court, Bharti
Yadav denied a romantic relationship with Katara, admitting only to a vague friendship. There
remains a single witness, a passer-by whose scooter broke down on the road taken by the
accused, and who has testified to seeing Katara in the vehicle. This witness has reported having
received threats against his life and was under police protection. The case remains unresolved,
and under intense public scrutiny.

On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court of India sentenced Vishal and Vikas Yadav to 25 years
in prison. The Delhi high court had earlier sentenced the convicts to 25 years in jail for the
murder, plus five years for destruction of evidence, with both sentences to run consecutively.

15
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Nitish-Katara-case

16
Sharat Pradhan (25 February 2004). "Who is D P Yadav? A Dossier". Rediff.com. Retrieved 2006-10-19.
25 | P a g e
 P a g e | 26

However, the Supreme Court allowed their sentences to run concurrently rather than
consecutively; meaning the Yadavs would spend the next 25 years behind bars, rather than 30.
Additionally, a third convict in the case, Sukhdev Pehalwan17 was sentenced to 20 years in
Prison.

3 . The Best Bakery Case18

The Best Bakery was a Muslim owned and operated business in Vadodara, Gujarat that was
set on fire by a Hindu mob during communal riots on March 1, 2002. Fourteen people were
killed in the attack, including the owner Habibullah Shaikh and eight other members of his
family. Among the witnesses was Zahira Shaikh, the owner’s eighteen-year-old daughter, who
identified several individuals in the mob in a March 2 statement to police. The accused were
also identified by Zahira in a statement before the National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) of India three weeks later. Twenty-one individuals were charged in the murder.
During the trial in May 2003, Zahira and other surviving members of her family retracted
earlier statements made to the police, resulting in the acquittal of all the accused on June 27.
Shortly thereafter, on July 11, Zahira claimed in a sworn statement before the NHRC that she
and other family members had been threatened and forced to retract their statement. In doing
this, she was assisted by Teesta Setalvad, secretary of the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace.
The NHRC petitioned the Supreme Court of India to order a retrial in a state other than Gujarat,
and the Court did so on April 12, 2004. The retrial began in October 2004, before a Special
Court of Sessions in Mumbai. At a dramatic November 3 press conference one day before she
was due in court, Zahira changed her testimony yet again, claiming that she had been abducted
by Setalvad and her organization, threatened and confined for months, and forced to file false
statements against the accused. A sting operation by Tehelka magazine in December revealed
that a substantial bribe of 1.8 million rupees (about $40,000) was paid to Zahira and her family
in order to retract her testimony against the accused. On February 24, 2006, nine of the original

17
Vishal Yadav vs. State of U.P., Crl.A. 741/2008 Archived 29 April 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
18
https://sabrangindia.in/article/best-bakery-case
26 | P a g e
 P a g e | 27

accused were convicted and eight acquitted by the Court. In separate proceedings, Zahira was
convicted of perjury and contempt of court.

OVERVIEW

Two common themes run through these cases: dramatic changes in witness testimony in
response to threats or bribes, and significant media and public involvement. In the Lal, Mattoo,
and Best Bakery cases, public action played a major role in the reversal of earlier verdicts. In
the Best Bakery case, such action was mediated through an NGO, Citizens for Justice and
Peace. Media outlets such as Tehelka magazine and NDTV aired confessions which clearly
galvanized public opinion19 We explore these common themes more formally below, using a
model of witness intimidation and public outrage which highlights strategic aspects of the
interaction between offenders and witnesses.

19
Even some of the main protagonists made an appearance in multiple cases: Delhi High Court Justices RS
Sodhi and PK Bhasin handled the cases of both Lal and Mattoo, and Vikas Yadav was among the accused in the
cases of Lal and Katara.
27 | P a g e
 P a g e | 28

CHAPTER = 9

LANDMARK CAMPAIGN

Campaigners say this was the latest in a long line of cases where members of India's elite had
been able to manipulate the law and get away with murder. But the pressure mounted over the
Jessica Lal case is seen as a turning point in efforts to bring the rich to justice. After the
February acquittals there was a huge outcry in the Indian media and students led candlelight
vigils in Delhi to demand justice for the murdered model. Observers say the case encouraged
sustained media campaigns and public protests which have resulted in other cases being
reopened and convictions secured. In October, the son of a former senior policeman was
convicted of raping and murdering Delhi student Priyardishini Mattoo in 1996. Earlier this
month, former Indian cricketer Navjot Sidhu was sentenced to three years in prison for
manslaughter after beating a man in a dispute over a parking space. His acquittal, too, was
overturned on appeal. Jessica's is not the lone case. A host of high-profile cases have brought
into sharp focus the courts' inability to convict. Whether it is the murders of Nitish Katara and
Priyadarshini Mattoo or poor people onside walks being mowed down by a Sanjiv Nanda or a
Salman Khan, the high-profile accused literally seem to be getting away with murder, while in
the Best Bakery case, key witness Zaheera Sheikh ended up becoming a pawn in the witness
purchase game. The message is forceful enough. Millions across the country have rallied
behind Jessica for justice, held candlelit vigils and protest rallies. In one corner of Delhi's India
Gate, a retired major has been camping for days with his wife, demanding justice for Jessica.

The public outcry over the judgement, in which all the accused got away, has forced into the
glare of public attention the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill 2003, drafted in 2000 and
introduced in 2005.The absurdity of the evidentiary process, which resulted in no one having
witnessed a murder in a room full of celebrities, has stretched collective patience like never
before and brought under intense scrutiny the legal flaws in dealing with hostile witnesses,
punishment for perjury and the need for a witness protection programme.

The statistics available with various courts, police and the National Crime Records Bureau are
startling. In 1961, the conviction rate in crimes like murder and rape in the country was about
20 per cent. It dropped to 6.4 per cent by 1998 and sank to an abysmally low 2.4 per cent in
28 | P a g e
 P a g e | 29

2004. In Delhi alone, of the 106 rape cases brought to courts between 2003 and 2005, only two
accused received sentences.

In none of the high-profile cases has any of the accused been punished, though, some cases
date back to 1995. In the Jessica case, many senior police officers and advocates of the Supreme
Court say that the trial court should have looked into the loads of circumstantial evidence, from
the presence of Sharma at the site of the crime to his missing revolver and cell phone records.

In a sense, Jessica has already gained some revenge, if not for herself, then for thousands of
other victims. The Delhi High Court has now forced the police to reopen the case but that
cannot become the norm. Trial courts have consistently set criminals free for lack of evidence
as witnesses turn hostile. Sometimes it is an unholy collusion, at other times, just incompetent
investigation and prosecution.

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill was finalized during Arun Jaitley's tenure as Union law
minister. And though there is a difference of opinion in the legal fraternity over introduction
of stringent punishment for witnesses turning hostile, the current mood appears to be in favor
of making witnesses stick to their statements made to the police under Section 164 of Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC).

29 | P a g e
 P a g e | 30

CHAPTER = 10

CONCLUSION

If we look at the various comments in the newspapers after the trial of the judgment the whole
thing becomes crystal clear. Even before the trial started the media started naming Manu Sharma
as an accused in the Jessica lal murder case. His photographs were flashed across the media and
created practical difficulties in the test identification parade of the accused persons. This point has
also been pondered over by the high court in its judgment.

The question that arises at this moment is that why Manu Sharma was acquitted by the court and
then again convicted by the High Court on the basis of same facts. First, we shall deal with as to
why the trial court had to acquit Manu Sharma. If we look at the evidence the whole thing becomes
clear. The car he came in to reach the restaurant was not recovered on the spot: the court does not
know how he got there. The weapon he used was never recovered: the court cannot equate the fatal
bullets with the gun he owns. Actually, the court does not even know if one gun or two guns were
used in the shooting. The court has no site plan to help it understand where the shooter stood,
where the empty cartridges were found or where Jessica fell. The restaurant floor was washed
clean: the court does not know if there ever was a pool of blood. Indeed, there was no hard evidence
of any celebration or party at the place: the booze bottles were gone, so why would Manu Sharma
kill another guest?

The post mortem report is way short on cause of death details. There are no eyewitnesses: no one
saw the shooter. The man recording the first information report says he does not understand his
own report because he is not particularly good with written Hindi (though we know he can speak
well enough). Evidence-collection in the case has been seriously botched; the holes would take
some filling. We don't have a chain of circumstances to connect Manu Sharma to the killing. Are
we going to send a man to the gallows just because the police arrested the man? Evidence-
collection in the case has been seriously botched; the holes would take some filling. The evidence
isn't going to now appear just because the High Court has the power to introduce additional
evidence.

The Judge possibly believed that if said facts were inconsistent and did not offer conclusive proof
of the guilt of the accused, he was bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Prima
facie, such a strictly judicial perception seems unexceptionable.

However, persons well versed with the Cr.P.C. would know that Section 311 invests in the Judge
the prerogative to summon Suo moto more material witnesses in addition to those produced by the
prosecution. This can be done at any stage of the trial. The Judge has also the authority to recall
and re-examine any person already examined.

30 | P a g e
 P a g e | 31

Section 311 is a potent weapon in the hands of a Judge who is confronted with a number of
witnesses reneging on their previous statements to the police. Public interest demanded that the
trial Judge strain every nerve of the law to arrive at the truth. All reports indicate that Judge
Bhayana did not appreciate the significance of the grave crime that had taken place and his own
moral responsibility to arrive at the truth. Viewed in this light, the failure is not only that of the
police but of the trial Judge as well.

The Jessica Lal case is one of several recent high-profile criminal cases that illustrate in dramatic
fashion the manner in which witness tampering and public outrage can interact to determine
judicial outcomes in India (four others are discussed above). In countries with high levels of
inequality but with legal systems that function well enough that affluent individuals fear what poor
people will say about them in court, there are incentives and opportunities for powerful criminal
defendants to bribe or threaten witnesses. There are costs to witnesses from accepting bribes, but
also significant risks associated with testifying against powerful interests in countries with limited
witness protection programs. The relative costs of different actions depend, in expectation, on the
extent to which public outrage over miscarriages of justice can be channeled through the press.
Freedom of the press can therefore be an important constraint on the miscarriage of justice in
developing countries. The mechanism through which public sentiment affects the functioning of
the criminal justice system is an example of what Albert Hirschman (1970) has called voice.
Hirschman argued that voice could serve as an alternative to competition in enhancing efficiency
within organizations. Since judicial systems, unlike firms, are not subject to the pressures exerted
by competitive markets, voice takes on even more importance in determining their level of
functionality. This paper explores the manner in which voice interacts with more familiar
incentives in determining the incidence of witness tampering. We begin with the observation that
the offer of a bribe can affect witness incentives in two quite distinct ways. There is a direct
monetary inducement to remain silent (or give false testimony), and there is a subtler effect on
witness beliefs regarding the likelihood of retaliation. If the offer of a bribe is a signal that the
offender is more likely to retaliate, bribes can be far more effective in reducing testimony than the
monetary inducements alone would predict. We show how such effects can arise in equilibrium,
and how the possibility of public outrage in response to a miscarriage of justice affects beliefs and
behavior. Our model is characterized by unobserved heterogeneity among both witnesses and
offenders. Witnesses differ in the satisfaction they experience from testifying, and offenders differ
in the costs they would incur to harm witnesses who testify, and the cost of giving bribes. Some
offenders have powerful revenge motives and gain from attacking witnesses who have testified
against them, even after the fact, and even when those witnesses have accepted no bribes. This
motive is amplified if a witness testifies even after accepting a bribe. We identify the existence of
equilibria in which offenders with strong revenge motives are disproportionately more likely to
offer bribes. Bribes therefore serve as a (noisy) signal of the viciousness of the offender: on
average, offenders who offer bribes are more likely to attack witnesses than those who do not. In
addition, the acceptance of a bribe changes offender payoffs in such a manner as to make retaliation
more likely. Both of these effects result in an increased subjective evaluation on the part of
31 | P a g e
 P a g e | 32

witnesses of the likelihood that testimony will be met with retaliation. Bribes are not simply
bribing; they are also veiled threats. Greater judicial effectiveness and greater media effectiveness
have very different equilibrium effects in this model. If the likelihood and severity of punishment
faced by offenders (conditional on truthful witness testimony) is increased, more offenders offer
bribes, and these are perceived by witnesses to be less threatening on average. The rate of
testimony conditional on a bribe offer therefore increases, although overall levels of testimony
may decline since attempted bribery is more common. In contrast, an increased likelihood of public
outrage (for instance due to greater media effectiveness) results in fewer offers of bribes but a
greater perception on the part of witnesses that testimony will be met with retaliation. Bribes
become less frequent but more threatening. The likelihood of testimony conditional on a bribe
offer may decline, but the overall rate of testimony could nevertheless rise since in incidence of
attempted bribery declines. Interestingly, greater media effectiveness increases the rate of
testimony whenever judicial effectiveness fails to do so. Finally, more witness tampering occurs
when wealth differences between offenders and witnesses are great, and favor offenders. Lowering
inequality can therefore reduce the incidence of witness tampering.

32 | P a g e
 P a g e | 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. https://www.legalindia.com/jessica-lal-a-case-of-indian-realism/
2. https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/20060403-jessica-lal-murder-case-
judgement-provokes-public-outrage-783483-2006-04-03
3. https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/20060403-jessica-lal-murder-case-
judgement-provokes-public-outrage-783483-2006-04-03
4. https://indianexpress.com/article/what-is/what-is-the-jessica-lal-murder-case/
5. https://www.ndtv.com/topic/jessica-lall-murder
6. ARTICLES

33 | P a g e