JESSICA LALL MURDER CASE

2006
 FACTS
❖ Jessica Lall , a model in New Delhi , working as a
celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party was
shot dead on April 30, 2 A.M. , 1999 at Qutub
Colonnade. She was rushed to Ashlok Hospital from
where she was shifted to Apollo Hospital, and in the
early morning hours, she was declared brought dead
in that hospital.

❖ Dozens of witness pointed to Siddharth Vashisht @

Manu Sharma, the son of Venod Sharma, a wealthy
Congress political in Haryana, as the murderer. He
shot Jessica Lall because she refused to serve him
and his friends liquor. During police interrogation ,
Sharma initially confessed to the murder. However,
the confession was later dismissed as evidence due
to a procedural technicality committed by the police.

❖ Charge u/s 302/201/120B IPC and also u/s 27 Arms

Act has been framed against accused Siddharth
Vashisht @ Manu Sharma .

❖ The initial trial began in August of 1999,by the end

of the hearings, four of the main witnesses who said
they were present on the night of the murder turned
hostile by retracting their initial statements.

❖ Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) SL Bhayan said

that police sought to ‘create’ and ‘introduce false
evidence’ against Sharma. The judgement repeatedly
hints that the prosecution may have attempted , from
 the very beginning, to fabricate the evidence and
present false witnesses, so as to reader the case
indefensible.

❖ In May 2001, several prosecution witnesses turned

hostile one by one. And after the extensive hearings
of dozens of witnesses, all nine suspects , including
Manu Sharma were acquitted in the lower court on
Feb 21 , 2006. The decision was largely based on
the Judge’s reasoning that the police had failed to
find the weapon that was used to kill Jessica Lall
and to gather enough evidence to support the claim
that the two cartridges recovered from the crime
scene were fired from the same weapon. The
judgement also faulted the police for deciding on the
accused first and then collecting against the him.

❖ After the verdict, many experts and people pointed

fingers at the flaws in the Indian Evidence Act of
1872, especially sections 27 to 29.

❖ But, with the growing pressure from the public, the

higher court of New Delhi admitted a police appeal
on the case on March 26, 2006, only a month after
the acquittal. It was not a trial but an appeal based on
evidence already marshaled by the lower courts
mainly due to a re-examination of the bullet casings
found at the scene.Only because of the nationwide
public outory against the incident , the Delhi High
Court took up the case .

❖ On 9 September 2006, a sting operation by the news

magazine Tehelka was shown on the TV channel
 STAR News and NDTV . This appeared to show
that witnesses had been bribed and coerced into
retracting their initial testimony mainly , Shayan
Munshi which revealed the truth that he knows
Hindi as he said in court that he don’t know Hindi
whereas he recorded his statement before police in
Hindi .

❖ Venod Sharma was named in the expose as one

who had paid money to some of the witnesses.
Facing pressure from the central Congress leaders,
he resigned from the Haryana Cabinet.

QUESTIONS OF LAW
• Whether the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 violates
the rules and right guaranteed under the following
Sections
27 (It provides that a confessional statement made
to a police officer or while an accused is in police
custody , can be proved against him , if the same
leads to discovery of an unknown fact.)

28 (Confession made after removal of impression

caused by inducement , threat or promise has , in
the opinion of the court , been fully removed , it is
relevant.

29 (Confession otherwise relevant not to become

irrelevant because of promise of secrecy , etc) of
the Constitution is therefore null?

• Whether there is rule in Indian Constitution to protect those witness who

turned hostile ?
 HELD
➢ The High Court ruled on December 15,
2006 that Manu Sharma and his co-
convicts were guilty based on existing
evidence , and also criticized the trial
judge , S.L. Bhayan.

➢ The High Court awarded life

imprisonment to Manu Sharma and
slapped a fine of Rs. 50,000 while it
awarded four year’s of imprisonment with
Rs. 3,000 fine for each co-convicts.

➢ The Court also held that the Indian

Evidence Act of 1872, does not curtail the
rights of the solicitor and the rules
mentioned in it.

➢ The judgement said that the lower court

had been lax in not considering the
testimony of witnesses such as Bina
Ramani and Deepak Bhojwani, stating
regarding the treatment of the latter’s
evidence that, “With very great respect to
the learned judge [Bhayana], we point out
that this manner of testing the credibility
of the witness is hardly a rule of
appreciation of evidence. Obviously, this
reflects the total lack of application of
mind and suggests a hasty approach
towards securing a particular end, namely
the acquittal.
➢ The judgement also said that the key
witness Munshi’s earlier repudiation
of the FIR that he is now claiming
that the statement was recorded in
Hindi while he had narrated the
whole story in English as he did not
know Hindi at all. Regarding
Munshi’s testimony that two guns
were involved , the judgement says :
“In court he has taken a somersault
and came out with a version that there
were two gentleman at the bar counter
.

➢ After the decision announced by High

Court of Sharma;s life imprisonment ,
a plea for him to be sentenced to
death was rejected on the grounds that
the murder, although intentional , was
not premeditated and Sharma was not
considered to be a threat to society.
After that, his lawyer announced that
the decision would be appealed in
Supreme Court because the
judgement was wrong in holding Bina
Ramani to be a witness.

➢ In conclusion, the Supreme Court

rejected the plea of Sharma and his
lawyer . And the apex court upheld
the conviction and life imprisonment
for Manu Sharma.
 There should be law for the protection of those witnesses who turned
hostile . As we can see in this case that over 32 witnesses turned
hostile .

Case written by:

Akanksha Verma
B.A.LL.B (Hons)
1st year
C.M.P Degree College (University of Allahabad)