'Manu Sharma Guilty ... For The Murder Of Jessica Lal'

56. In the totality of circumstances adduced frommaterial on record, the judgment under challenge appears to us to be an immatureassessment of material on record which is self-contradictory, based onmisreading of material and unsustainable. We find that Beena Ramani hasidentified Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gil, Alok Khanna andVikas Yadav to be the persons present at the Tamarind Cafe at the time of theincidence. She also saw Manu Sharma firing the fatal shot which hit Jessica Lal.Her testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of Malini Ramani and GeorgeMailhot. 

There is evidence on record to show that Manu Sharma had a licensedpistol of .22 bore which he has not produced to establish his innocence and onthe contrary has taken false plea that the pistol, its ammunition and licencehad been removed by the Police on 30.4.1999. We also find from the material onrecord that Manu Sharma abandoned his vehicle while making good his escape. Wealso find that the ammunition used in the causing of the firearm injury toJessica Lal was of .22 bore which Manu Sharma admittedly possessed and a similarlive cartridge was recovered from the abandoned Tata Safari. From this, we haveno hesitation in holding that Manu Sharma is guilty of an offence under Section302 IPC for having committed the murder of Jessica Lal on 29/30.4.1999 at theTamarind Cafe as also under Section 27 Arms Act.

57. Coming to the case put up by the Prosecution as regards Vikas Yadav andAmardeep Singh Gill, we have noted above that both these accused were present atthe Tamarind Cafe when Manu Sharma caused firearm injuries to Jessica Lal. Thesetwo persons subsequently were seen by PW-30 Sharvan Kumar, coming in a whiteTata Siera driven by Amardeep Singh Gill from which Vikas Yadav alighted andsurreptitiously removed the Tata Safari which was being guarded by SharvanKumar. The very fact that Vikas Yadav removed the Tata Safari from QutubColonnade is sufficient to bring home his guilt under Section 201 IPC since heand Amardeep Singh Gill both knowing that an offence has been committed at theTamarind Cafe by Manu Sharma caused the Tata Safari, which is part of theevidence, to be removed with an intention to screening Manu Sharma. 

From thesecircumstances it is evident that the Tata Safari was removed from outside QutubColonnade pursuant to a conspiracy between Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh Gill andManu Sharma. Therefore, these three accused are guilty of having conspired toremove the Tata Safari from Qutub Colonnade and are held guilty under Section201 read with Section 120-B IPC. 

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

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

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

61. The case against Vikas Gill was that he wascharged for escorting Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma to Panchkula between30.4.1999 and 1.5.1999 and harboured him with the intention to screening himfrom legal punishment. We find from the record that there is no evidence to theeffect that Vikas Gill took Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma to Panchkula fromDelhi and/or harboured him at any place. Consequently we uphold his acquittalunder Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Vikas Gill. 

62. The caseagainst 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 fromlegal punishment. From the material on record we find no admissible evidence tosubstantiate the charge against this accused. Consequently we uphold hisacquittal under Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Raja Chopra. 

63. Asregards the case against Alok Khanna, he was charged under Section 120-B readwith Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of Tata Safari from QutubColonnade. We find there is no evidence to link Alok Khanna with the conspiracyto remove or destroy evidence. No doubt, his car was used by Amardeep Singh Gilland Vikas Yadav to go to Qutub Colonnade to remove the Tata Safari, but this initself is not sufficient to hold that Alok Khanna consented to or was a part ofthe conspiracy shared by Amardeep Singh Gill with Vikas Yadav to remove the TataSafari from the Qutub Colonnade. In that view of the matter, we find that theProsecution has not been able to bring home its case against Alok Khanna, Theappeal qua Alok Khanna is dismissed. 

64. We may also note here that RavinderKrishan Sudan and Dhanraj were declared Proclaimed Offender by the trial court.Their case is not before us. 

65. In the above analysis, while holding SidharthaVashisht @ Manu Sharma guilty under Section 302 IPC for the murder of JessicaLal as also under Section 27 Arms Act and Section 201/120B IPC, we also holdAmardeep Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav guilty for the offence punishable underSection 201 IPC/120-B IPC while upholding the acquittal of the remainingrespondents of the offences charged against them. Accused Siddharth Vashisht @Manu Sharma, Vikas Yadav and Amardeep Singh Gill be taken into custody forthwithand lodged in Central Jail, Tihar. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

[R.S.SODHI]
JUDGE


[P.K.BHASIN]
JUDGE
December 18, 2006