On The Trial Court Judgment

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 theliquor 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, oneperson 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 wasalready 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 liquoravailable 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 lefteye 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 earlymorning 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 beenframed against accused Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and AlokKhanna. Charge u/s 212 IPC has been framed against the accused Harvinder Chopra, Raja Chopra, Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill and Yograj Singh. Charge u/s201/212 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 claimedtrial.'

3. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Prosecution in order to support their case, examined as many as 101 witnesses. Of which, PW-1Deepak 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 SumitabhBhatnagar, PW-19 Andleep Sehgal, PW-20, Beena Ramani, PW-21 ASI Madan Pal, PW-24, GeorgeMailhot, 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 theremaining witnesses were formal in nature.

4. The learned Additional Sessions, upon appreciation of evidence on record,came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has been able to prove that accusedSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was holding a licensed pistol of .22 bore andthat he had purchased 25 rounds of cartridges from Haryana Gun House on 4.2.1999and that the pistol used in the commission of the crime has not been recoveredfrom 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 IndustriesPrivate Limited of which Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was one of thedirectors. The learned Judge also held that Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khannawere working in Hindustan Coca Cola Company at the relevant time and wereallotted Tata Siera car each. He further held that Tata Siera car bearingregistration No. HR-26-H-4348 was allotted to Amardeep Singh Gill. The learnedJudge also held that Amardeep Singh Gill was given mobile phone No. 9811100237while Alok Khanna was given mobile phone No. 9811068169 by the Hindustan CocaCola Company. The Court also held that telephone No. 3782072 was installed atB.R. Mehta Lane which was the residence of Mr. D.P. Yadav, father of theaccused, Vikas Yadav, and that telephone Nos. 4765152-53 were installed at theSugar Mill owned by Piccadilly Agro Industries Private Limited of whichSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Shyam Sunder Sharma and Harvinder Chopra weredirectors at the relevant time.

The Court returned a finding that Beena Ramani was the owner of therestaurant 'Once Upon a Time' and she was running a cafe named 'Tamarind CourtCafe' at Qutub Colonnade. The Court went on to return a finding that on29.4.1999 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 wasserved. At that party, Jessica Lal was wearing a blue denim short and halfsleeve white shirt.

The Court also held that the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, alongwith co-accused Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav, was present atthe said party at Tamarind Court Cafe on the night of the occurrence whensomeone fired a shot at Jessica Lal as a result of which she received injury onher head. She was removed to Ashlok Hospital from where she was removed toApollo Hospital and declared 'brought dead' by the doctor at 4.37 a.m. The Courtfurther returned a finding that Jessica Lal was transferred from Apollo Hospitalto 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 firearm 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 hadfired a shot at Jessica Lal and Jessica Lal had received injuries in thatfiring. The learned Judge also returned a finding that Beena Ramani tried tostop one person named, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, who was coming alongwith Shyan Munshi. She also told him to give her the gun. The Court, relyingupon the evidence of PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, returned a finding that SidharthaVashisht @ Manu Sharma was seen at the party at Tamarind Court Cafe and thatManu Sharma had asked for two pegs of whisky from PW-1 who also saw the otherco-accused persons joining Manu Sharma later on. This witness has identifiedAmardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav which, according to the Court,proves that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, AlokKhanna and Vikas Yadav were present at the Tamarind Court Cafe where theincidence took place.

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

6. Agreeing with the arguments of counsel for the accused, the Court heldthat PW-2, Shyan Munshi, PW-3 Shiv Dass Yadav and PW-4 Karan Rajput were not eyewitnesses and had not seen the occurrence. Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma hadpurchased 25 rounds of .22 bore against his licence from PW-7, Naveen Chopra,and that those cartridges were marked 'KF' indicating the manufacture at KirkiFactory. None of these cartridges were used in the commission of crime. TheCourt held 'that the Police on 30.4.1999 had decided to frame the accusedSidhartha Vashisht in this case; that PW-30, Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar, wasnot present on the spot on the night of the occurrence on 29/30.4.1999; thatPW-101 Inspector Surender Kumar had introduced the story of broken pieces ofglasses falsely; that there is no evidence on record to show that accusedSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and VikasYadav had come in a black Tata Safari car to Qutub Colonnade on the night of29/30.4.1999; that the Prosecution had failed to connect the mobile phone No.9811096893 with the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma; that PW-1, DeepakBhojwani 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-20Beena Ramani; that PW-24 George Mailhot was not present at the Tamarind CourtCafe at the time of the incident; that the Prosecution has failed to prove theconversation between PW-57 Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Sudan @ Titu; that theProsecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that no chanceprints were lifted from the black Tata Safari car No. CH-01-W- 6535; thatalthough the accused persons were present at the party on the fateful night ofthe occurrence, their mere presence is of no consequence; that the photographsof all the accused persons, namely, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, AmardeepSingh Gill, Ashok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were shown to the witnesses before theaccused were identified in Court; that there is no evidence against Shyam SunderSharma regarding involvement in destruction of evidence or harbouring of theaccused 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 conclusionthat all the links in the chain of evidence produced by the Prosecution areeither missing or broken. The Court went on to hold that the Prosecution hadmiserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and thereby acquittedthem of all charges.