PW-24: George Mailhot

41. Although the case against Sidhartha Vashisht stands fully proved by thetestimony of PW-20 alone, yet we find sufficient corroboration to her testimonyfrom the deposition of PW-24, George Mailhot, who deposes to the holding of theThursday party on the fateful night and goes on to say that around 2.00 a.m. hewas standing in the courtyard near a large tree about 20 feet away from therestaurant facing opposite the entrance gate of the restaurant when he heard twopopshots like balloon. He turned towards the restaurant door and within fewseconds Shyan Munshi came running saying that someone had shot Jessica. Thewitness went towards the restaurant and saw Beena Ramani, PW-20, addressing ayoung man who was moving around and Beena Ramani was following him and sayingthat 'you are the one, give me the gun'. He identified Sidhartha Vashisht as theperson whom Beena Ramani was following. He also testifies having followedSidhartha Vashisht on foot up to Adam Khan's tomb at which point SidharthaVashisht vanished. The witness then went on to the Police Station to lodge areport where he found that the report had already been lodged. He came back toQutub Colonnade and found that Beena Ramani had already taken Jessica to thehospital. The witness subsequently saw Sidhartha Vashisht at Police StationMehrauli.

42. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht, thiswitness was primarily cross-examined about his personal background and hisinterest in the property called 'Qutub Colonnade' as also about the nature ofparties being organized there on Thursdays as well as on other days of the week.It was also elicited from him in cross-examination that after the incident, whenthe Police reached the spot, couple of bottles of liquor were mysteriouslyrecovered from the restaurant by the Police. Relying on this statement also ofGeorge Mailhot, senior counsel for Sidhartha Vashisht submitted that thiswitness himself also wants to convey that the Police had foisted a false excisecase against his family members and because of that they were pressurised tofalsely implicate Sidhartha Vashisht. 

This argument also cannot be acceptedbecause admittedly the accused in the excise case had been convicted on theirpleading guilty. A perusal of cross-examination of this witness also shows thatvirtually there is no cross-examination on the material aspect of his testimonyin the form of his examination-in-chief except for a general suggestion given byhim at the end of his cross-examihnation that he had identified accusedSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at the asking of the Investigating Agencywhich, of course, he denied categorically. 

There is no particular challenge tohis statement that his wife, Beena Ramani, was following the accused SidharthaVashisht @ Manu Sharma after the firing incident and on her telling him tofollow Manu Sharma he had followed him upto a place from where he disappeared.Therefore, this part of the testimony of this witness fully corroborates theversion of Beena Ramani to the effect that she had followed the accusedSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma only after the firing incident. Here again wemay notice that as far as the presence of the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ ManuSharma at the time of the incident at the Qutub Colonnade is concerned, thetrial court itself has accepted the Prosecution's case and categorically heldthat he along with his associates was present. 

We fully endorse that finding ofthe trial court and even counsel for the respondents before us, except formaking a half-hearted submission that this finding of the trial court is notsupported by any reasoning, no other cogent reason was given by them to reversethis categoric finding of the trial court regarding the presence of SidharthaVashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav at thespot. It was elicited from him that he had been visiting Police Station almostevery day. It was on account of this statement made by him that it was argued onbehalf of the accused that Ramani family was being pressurised to falselyimplicate Sidhartha Vashisht as otherwise there was no occasion for the Policefor calling Ramani family to the Police Station for days together when they werematerial Prosecution witnesses for this murder case. We have already rejectedthis argument being devoid of any merit.