Corroborating Evidence

43. The identification of the accused in Court by PWs. 1, 6, 20 and 24 wasalso challenged by counsel for the respondents on the ground that most of thewitnesses admit that Police had shown them the photos of the culprits duringinvestigation 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 bedisbelieved. As per the Prosecution case, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma couldnot 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 from30.4.1999 itself suspected him and Manu Sharma was evading Police contacting himfor interrogation, suspicion of Police got converted into a positive case of hisinvolvement and in that event, his photo was shown to witnesses who had beenclaiming that they would be able to identify the culprits, there was nothingobjectionable in that action of the investigating agency.

44. Regarding the allegation that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma wasabsconding, his counsel argued that it was false since the moment the co-accusedimplicated him on 5.5.1999, Manu Sharma himself surrendered on 6.5.1999 andbefore that, the Police did not have any evidence against him nor was herequired to appear before the Police. This argument overlooks the fact that thisaccused has himself taken a plea that his farmhouse was raided on 30.4.1999 andcertain articles were seized from there including his licensed pistol. This pleademolishes the argument that he was not evading the Police. If he says that hisfarmhouse had been raided on 30.4.1999, then he should have surrendered on thesame day itself as he did six days later. He knew before 6.5.1999 that Policewas looking for him from 30.4.1999 itself and if he did not surrenderimmediately, the only inference which can be drawn by us is that he wasabsconding which circumstance can be utilized by the Prosecution to strengthenits case against him.

Tata Safari

45. Another circumstance which substantiates the Prosecution's case regardingSidhartha Vashisht's murdering Jessica Lal, is the recovery of Tata Safari fromNoida which was removed from Qutub Colonnade by Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gilland 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. Thisabandoned car belonged to Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited of which ManuSharma was admittedly a director at that time. This vehicle was stated to besurreptitiously removed and then recovered from Noida. The criticism that thevehicle was, in fact, recovered from Karnal is misreading of statement ofPW-100. PW-100 does not say that he recovered the Tata Safari from Karnal butdeposes to the effect that the Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited was registeredin Karnal. The Tata Safari was, in fact, recovered from Noida by U.P. Police andhanded over by the court to the Delhi Police on superdari. The police officialfrom Noida police station PW-91 SI B.D.Dubey had clearly deposed that he hadrecovered Tata Safari from Noida area on 02-05-99. His testimony to this effecthas remained unchallenged and un-controverted. His cross-examination on behalfof accused Vikas Yadav and Sidhartha Vashisht was confined only to find outwhether any finger prints were lifted from the Tata Safari and whether he wasquestioned by Delhi Police after its recovery. Although a suggestion was put tohim that he had made a false statement in connivance with Mehrauli police but wehave no reason to accept that, since no motive has been alleged against thiswitness for falsely deposing. 

It cannot be accepted that everybody on this earthhad conspired to falsely implicate Sidhartha Vashisht nor he has made any suchattempt to even probabilise his false implication. He has claimed that he wasfalsely implicated due to political influence but he has not even bothered toname the politician who could have got him falsely implicated in this case. Theaccused, at no point of time, made any complaint about missing of the vehiclewhich he now claims to have been taken into possession from Karnal.

.22 Pistol

46. There is yet another strong circumstance showing the involvement ofSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma in the murder of Jessica Lal and thatcircumstance 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 cartridgecases of .22 bore were recovered by the police as also the fact that themutilated 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 implicatedin this case for the offence of murder it was for him to have produced hislicenced pistol as also the 25 rounds to show that he could not be involved inthe 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 underSection 313 Cr.P.C. That there was no occasion for him to have produced hislicensed pistol since the same had been seized by the Police along with thelicence and ammunition from his farmhouse at Sambhalkha on the night of30.4.1999 itself when a search was conducted there. 

Support of this plea, whichwe find to be an afterthought and a concoction, was sought from the testimony ofyet another hostile witness, PW-44, Shankar Mukhia who is none other than hisown employee on duty at his farmhouse. This witness was examined by theProsecution to show that in the evening of 29.4.1999 Sidhartha Vashisht had gonefrom the farmhouse in black Tata Safari and then did not come back. However, heturned hostile and did not support the Prosecution on this aspect. Despite thefact that he had not supported the Prosecution's allegations involving SidharthaVashisht @ Manu Sharma, yet he was cross-examined by defence and then it waselicited from him that the Police had visited the farmhouse and had taken awaythe pistol and the licence of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma. Credibility ofthis witness stood fully impeached in his cross- examination by the PublicProsecutor when he was confronted with his Police statement under Section 161Cr.P.C. If actually any raid had been conducted in the farmhouse of Mannu Sharmaon 30.4.1999 and something had been taken away by the Police, this witness wouldhave definitely lodged a protest to the effect that the Police without givinghim receipt had removed Manu Sharma's pistol and licence. 

It is also significantto note that when during the investigation stage the Police was seeking ManuSharma's police remand for recovery of weapon of offence, at which time he didnot claim that the Police had already seized his pistol from his farmhouse. Wefind from a reading of the impugned judgment that no such plea was raised and nofinding was returned on this aspect of the matter. We have no manner of doubtthat if this argument had been advanced, it would have been met with. Before usit was argued by counsel for the appellant that when the Police had submitted acharge-sheet in Court and had supplied some document to him, an application wasmoved before the Magistrate requesting for supply of a copy of the seizure memoby which the Police had taken away the pistol from his farmhouse on 30.4.1999.Counsel drew our attention to that application dated 16.8.1999 which, accordingto the learned Additional Solicitor General, was clearly a plant in judicialrecord. There is no reference to any such application in any of the proceedingsof the Magistrate. Not only that, it was submitted that even if it had beenfiled, it was only an eye wash, not to be pursued and, in fact, it was notpursued at all by insisting supply of such an important seizure memo. We are infull agreement with the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor Generalin 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 theaccused, 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 theaforesaid circumstantial evidence have been rejected, with due respect, by thelearned trial Judge, on wholly unsustainable grounds and we have no hesitationin concluding that the view taken by the learned trial Judge on the evidence ofPW-20, Beena Ramani, PW-6, Malini Ramani and PW-24, George Mailhot as alsoregarding the presence of Tata Safari at the spot, its recovery from Noida witha live .22 bore cartridge could not have been taken at all. The view taken bythe trial court is positively perverse.

49. We find that the Prosecution has led evidence in support of presence ofTata Safari at Qutub Colonnade by producing PW-30, Home Guard Constable SharavanKumar, who deposes that he accompanied Inspector Surender Sharma during theinvestigation of this case on 29/30.4.1999. He joined Inspector Surender Sharmaat the gate of the police station and went to the spot in a Police gypsy. He wasdirected to keep vigil at the parking lot so as to ensure that no cars wereremoved. He saw five or six vehicles parked there, one of which was parkedseparately. 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 TataSafari and began unlocking the same. The witness tried to stop them but couldnot and the black Tata Safari No. CH-01-W-6535 was driven away at which time hegave a danda blow to the rear right view glass of the same. The Tata Siera wasbeing 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 TataSafari and Amardeep Singh Gill as the driver of the Tata Siera. He was sought tobe discredited primarily as being a planted witness since he was given regularappointment 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 nothave been present at the place where he claims to have noticed the Tata Safarisince in his cross-examination he has admitted that at the Police Station he hadbeen assigned the duty of handing over one DD entry in respect of some otherincident which was being inquired into by another Sub-Inspector at a place whichwas quite far away from the Police Station. 

It was contended that in normalcourse, this witness was supposed to be doing the duty assigned to him and couldnot be present at the parking lot at Qutub Colonnade where he claims to havenoticed the Tata Safari lying parked and then being taken away. There is nodoubt that this witness admits that he was given appointment in Delhi Policelater on but from this fact it cannot be inferred that he was rewarded formaking a false statement in this case. We see no reason why the Police shouldhave planted a false witness.

50. The criticism as regards his presence at the spot, has been explained bythe witness himself who says that he was at the gate of the Police Station, theSHO had come there and taken him along with him to Qutub Colonnade, we findnothing abnormal in that conduct of a constable when he is being asked by theSHO to accompany him to a place other than the place for which he was asked togo by the Duty Officer in connection with some other case. The SHO, PS Mehraulialso supports PW-30, Sarvan Kumar. The presence of PW-3 is also deposed to byother Police officials present at the spot.

51. From an analysis of the deposition of PW-30, we find him to be a naturalwitness of the case to which he has deposed. We also find the criticism againsthim to be a matter of meaningless hair splitting. There is a ring of trutharound 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. Thecursory manner in which the witness has been discarded shows a lack of properappreciation of evidence. Once a reasonable explanation has been given by awitness for his presence at the spot, there was hardly any reason to stretchimagination to belie his presence. Merely because he was assigned to deliver aDD entry to SI Rishi Pal which, the witness explains, he did not deliver, theexplanation given is logical and ought not to have been disbelieved in thisstrange way of assessing the material and discarding it. 

The findings of'planting' are very serious observations and cannot be made in such a casualmanner. There must be positive evidence to show that a witness is planted whichmust then result in consequential action against the Prosecution rather thanusing this merely to give benefit to the accused. Further observation of thetrial court that PW-30 could not have been present in Dera Mandi Village and atthe Qutub Colonnade at the same time, is wholly unfounded. The witness statesthat he did not carry the DD entry to SI Rishi Pal. Merely because Rishi Palreceived the DD entry does not conclude that it was delivered to him by SharvanKumar.

52. The other cirticism of the learned defence counsel qua the Tata Safari isthat there is no witness who has seen Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma arrivingat the Qutub Colonnade in the Tata Safari. He claimed that the Tata Safari hasbeen falsely planted by the Prosecution to implicate Manu Sharma. Thiscriticism, we find, is devoid of substance. PW-30, as we have already stated, isa trustworthy witness who testifies to the Tata Safari being present and havingremoved by the co-accused of Manu Sharma. The attempt of learned counsel todiscredit 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 privatevehicle at the gate of the Qutub Colonnade at 3.15 a.m. only goes to show thathe did not observe the presence of Tata Safari but does not rule out thepresence of the Tata Safari. About PW-86's evidence, less said the better. He isthoroughly unreliable witness. He does not even know the difference betweensummer 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 thematerial on record. This circumstance lends assurance to the presence of ManuSharma at the Tamarind Cafe and corroborates the type of ammunition used in thecommission of the crime, empties whereof were recovered from the scene ofoccurrence and a similar live cartridge recovered from the Tata Safari. We havealso noted that Harvinder Chopra does not claim that the Tata Safari which wasallotted to him was missing on the date of incident or that he had made anyreport to the effect that somebody had stolen the same from Karnal. He also doesnot 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, wefind that the Prosecution's case that the Tata Safari was left abandoned by ManuSharma 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 ballisticexpert, Roop Singh, who opined that the empties recovered from the spot of theoccurrence appear to have been fired from two weapons. We find from the materialon record that the empties from the spot recovered vide recovery Memo Ex. 100/1as also the live cartridge recovered from the Tata Safari, Ex.PW-74/A sent forexamination in July, 1999. The report of Roop Singh Ex. PW-89/DB is notevidenced per se under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code since it was aphoto copy in which case it was incumbent upon the defence to examine RoopSingh, 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 twoweapons had been used in the commission of the crime. 

As regards the secondopinion of PW-95, Prem Sagar Manocha, we find that the opinion categoricallystates that it is not possible to say whether the cartridges have been firedfrom two different weapons. However, following a court question, the witnessseems to have rattled out everything to the contrary to his own report tosupport the two weapon theory which was being pressed by the defence. Thiswitness does not appear to be a trustworthy witness. Once having rendered anopinion that it was not possible to give a report regarding the empties beingfired from two separate weapons, he could not have testified to the contrarywithout specifically carrying out tests for that purpose afresh. The suddenemergence of the work sheets in the court raises grave doubts as to thetrustworthiness of this witness and genuineness of the work sheets. 

We needhardly belabor over this so-called scientific evidence since its veracity is notbeyond doubt. The two weapon theory appears to be a concoction to the defenceand 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 theempties were sent for examination at such a belated stage, cannot rule out thepossibility 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 evidenceof Prem Sagar Manocha.