Prosecution's Case

8. Challenging the correctness of the judgment under appeal, Shri GopalSubramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General, argued that the judgmentunder challenge is self-destructive, contradictory and omits to appreciate theevidence on record as also a misread evidence.

In support of his contention, learned Additional Solicitor General pointedout that the Court agrees with the Prosecution to the effect that SidharthaVashisht @ Manu Sharma was holder of a licensed pistol of .22 bore; that TataSafari car No. CH-01-W-6535 was registered in the name of Piccadilly AgroIndustries Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh, of which accused Sidharth Vasihshth was one ofthe directors; that Amardeep Singh Gill was allotted Tata Siera car bearingregistration No. HR- 26-H-4348; that Amardeep Singh Gill was having mobile phoneNo. 9811100237, Alok Khanna was having mobile phone No. 9811068169 given byHindustan Coca Cola Company and that telephone No.3782072 was installed at theresidence of D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav, and that telephone Nos.4765152-53 were installed at the Sugar Mill owned by Piccadilly Agro IndustriesLimited of which Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma and Harvinder Chopra weredirectors at the relevant time; that Beena Ramani owned the restaurant 'OnceUpon a Time' and she was running a cafe named 'Tamarind Court Cafe' at QutubColonnade at the relevant time and that on 29.4.1999 a private party was goingon at the said restaurant which was a regular Thursday party when liquor wasserved in the restaurant; that the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma,along with the co-accused Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav, waspresent at the said party at Tamarind Court Cafe on the night of the occurrencewhen someone fired a shot at Jessica Lal as a result of which she receivedinjuries on the head.

She was removed to Ashlok Hospital from where she was removed to ApolloHospital and declared 'brought dead'. The body was transferred to All IndiaInstitute of Medical Sciences where postmortem was conducted by Dr. R.K. Sharmawho opined that the cause of death was head injury caused by fire arm and it wassufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; that PW-20, BeenaRamani, deposed that PW-2 Shyan Munshi, came running to her and told her thatsomeone had fired a shot at Jessica Lal and she had received injuries in thatfiring; that PW-20 Beena Ramani had stated that she stopped one person, namely,Sidhartha Vashisht who was coming along with Shyan Munshi; that she told him togive her the gun; that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill,Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were seen at the spot of occurrence on the night of29/30.4.1999.

Learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the findings of the trialcourt against the Prosecution in paragraphs 241, 250, 251, 254, 277, 278, 280,285, 292 and 295 in relation to the occurrence are incorrect and perverse. Herelied upon the testimony of PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, who states that Jessica Laland Shyan Munshi were serving liquor on that night at the bar counter. I wasmoving around in the party with two glasses of whisky when I came across aperson having fair complexion who was giving smile to me. I also reciprocated.He gave me his name as Manu Sharma. He said as to how I was holding two glassesof whisky in my hands whereas he was unable to get even one. Manu Sharma cameinto my contact after about 10-15 minutes of my purchasing two pegs of whisky.The witness goes on to say we were already introduced to each other and wereabout to exchange visiting cards when one tall Sikh gentleman came from behindof Manu Sharma and told him something and took him away towards Tamarind Cafe.

9. Learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the Prosecution has beenable to prove that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, AlokKhanna and Vikas Yadav were present at the spot of incidence on the night of29/30.4.1999, their identities having been fixed.

There is evidence on record to show that Manu Sharma had a fire arm on hisperson and used the same to fire two shots, one in the air which went throughthe roof and the other that struck Jessica Lal. He submitted that theProsecution has been able to prove that the findings of the trial court againstthe Prosecution are incorrect and perverse without basis of the evidence adducedon record. He submitted that the Prosecution has been able to show by positiveevidence that Manu Sharma was the owner of and in possession of a .22 boreBerretta pistol made in Italy; that two empty cartridges cases of the .22 with'C' mark were recovered from the spot; that the mutilated lead recovered fromthe skull of the deceased was of .22 and could have been fired from a standard.22 caliber firearm; that from the Tata Safari live cartridges of .22 with mark'C' was recovered indicating that the fired cartridge and live one were of thesimilar make; that the two .22 cartridge cases of 'C' mark were lying near eachother on the counter discarding the theory of 'that they were fired by twodifferent people'.

He submitted that the Prosecution has been able to show that the Expertopinion of Roop Singh is not admissible and cannot be used as evidence. It hasalso been able to show that the opinion of Prem Sagar Minocha given in Ex.PW-95/C-1 is inconclusive. His testimony in Court that destroys his opinion, Ex.PW-95/C-1, is baseless and cannot be relied upon. The Prosecution has been ableto show that Manu Sharma came to Qutub Colonnade in a black Tata Safari carNo.CH-01-W- 6535 which he abandoned while making a hasty escape after theshooting. In other words, the Prosecution has been able to bring home the guiltof the accused beyond shadow of doubt.

10. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the basis of thejudgment of acquittal is clearly erroneous, perverse and deserves to be setaside for reasons that the trial court wrongly proceeded on the basis that itwas the story of the Prosecution that two shots were fired by two persons fromtwo different pistols which was never the case of the Prosecution. Moreover, inthe light of ocular testimony of PW-2, Beena Ramani, the ballistic expert, whosetestimony is riddled with contradictions, cannot be used to override the ocularevidence.

The Court erred in holding that all the three eye witnesses turned hostileand overlooked the fact that PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, PW-20, PW-24 and PW-70 werewitnesses of different aspects of the incidence and that the evidence has to beread as a whole. The trial court grossly erred in the manner of appreciation oftestimonies of the said witnesses by reading into the said testimony what wasnot there. The key witnesses' evidence which did not exist, for instance, whiledealing with PW-20, the trial court arrived at a factually wrong finding, notborne out from the evidence on record, to the effect that she thought that hehad fired a shot at Jessica Lal and that she was not an eye witness.

The extent of perversity in the judgment is also reflected by a fallaciouspresumption drawn about the manner of investigation in paragraph 256 of thejudgment.  The findings are without any basis. Learned Additional SolicitorGeneral submitted that from the testimony of the PW-101, Inspector SurenderSharma, it was revealed that when the said witness was informed by PW-30 aboutthe Tata Safari having been taken away by force, he communicated the saidinformation to his superiors in order to find out the ownership details aboutthe Tata Safari car bearing Chandigarh registration number. In reply, he wasinformed that the same was registered in the name of Piccadilly Agro IndustriesPvt. Ltd. of which Manu Sharma was a director and the same was being used byhim. The Court has erred in reading the said piece of evidence and therebycoming to a perverse finding.

The trial court wrongly placed reliance on Ex. PW-24/A which is the guestlist and disbelieved the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-24 andPW-30 as being planted witnesses. This guest list which was prepared by PW-24was pressed into service even though the trial court returned a finding thatPW-24 was not present at the scene of occurrence.

In paragraph 278 of the judgment, the trial court justifies refusal of TestIdentification Parade on a wrong premises that PW-6 had stated that photographof Manu Sharma were shown to her parents. Similarly, at paragraph 279, the trialcourt wrongly finds that PW-20 had stated that she heard another shot beingfired by someone in the restaurant. Also in paragraph 254 the trial court, inorder to arrive at a finding that PW-2, Shyan Munshi, did not know Hindi,wrongly finds that PW-23, Rouble Dunglay, has deposed that Shyan Munshi did notknow Hindi.

11. Learned Additional Solicitor General further went on to pick holes in thejudgment by submitting that the trial court arrived at a finding that ManuSharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were present at thescene of occurrence with the aid of PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, whom he discards, ashaving been a planted witness. Nonetheless, having returned such a finding, theburden of proof shifted to the accused persons who flatly denied their presenceat the scene of occurrence without even setting up a plea of alibi. He went onto submit that this is a case where a host of Prosecution witnesses turnedhostile at the instance of the defence. It has got introduced false evidenceinto the case from the witnesses who have turned hostile and that the defence haseven gone on to tamper with judicial record. The Court should have seen throughthe game of the defence rather than, with single stroke, paint the Prosecutionas villain of having set up a false case against Manu Sharma.