The End Of Manuvaad?

The long arm of the law stretched out oncemore in recent days, restoring the public's faith that justice may sometimes bedelayed, but it is not denied if there is a widespread public outrage and demandfrom the system to deliver. Overturningan earlier acquittal in yet another sensational murder case, the Delhi High Court todayconvicted Manu Sharma, son of former union minister and Haryana Congressman VinodSharma (till recently, a minister in the Haryana Congress government) for killing modelJessica Lall, holding that the trial court's assessment of evidence was"immature and self-contradictory".

If somebody expected defence lawyer Ram Jethmalani to have pulled a technical rabbit out ofan empty legal tricks box, they were sorely disappointed. Wrapping up the appeal in 25hearings, a Bench comprising Justice R S Sodhi and Justice P K Bhasin, which hadrecently given death sentence to Santosh Kumar Singh in the Priyadarshni Mattoocase, wascategorical:

"We have no hesitation inholding that Manu Sharma is guilty of an offence under Section 302 (murder) ofIPC for having committed the murder of Jessica Lal ... As also under Section 27of the Arms Act...In the totality of circumstances adduced from material on record, thejudgement under challenge appears to us to be an immature assessment of materialon record, which is self-contradictory, based on misreading of material andunsustainable".

Earlier, Ram Jethmalani, had created quite a stir byarguing in court that Jessica Lall was killed not by Manu Sharma but by a tall gentleman with red turbanwho had fired at her. Jethamlani had sensationally argued that Jessica had been killed not forrefusing to serve a drink, as widely reported, but because she had challengedthe killer's manhood, and that therefore the motive was not liquor but something else.Jessica Lall, a model, who was serving as a bartender at a crowded Tamarind Court, a high-profile celebrity hangout in New Delhi,was shot in the temple, at around 2 am, way back on 30 April 1999. Typically,when contacted, Jethmalani called the judgement "rubbish" and said,"We will appeal in the Supreme Court". 

The Bench also convicted Vikas Yadav, an accused in the Nitish Katara murder case,and Amardeep Singh Gill alias Tony, an executive in a multinational firm, forconspiracy and destruction of evidence. The remaining accused—Shyam Sunder Sharma, a relative of former President S DSharma; Harvinder Chopra, Chartered Accountant in Piccadilly Industries owned by Manu'sfather; Yograj Singh, father of cricketer Yuvraj Singh; Vikas Gill, who absconded after the appeal wasfiled; businessman Raja Chopra and Aloke Khanna, formerly an executive in an MNC with Tony Gill—were acquitted.

Manu Sharma

The court will hear arguments on the quantum ofsentence on Wednesday, which forManu Sharma could be a maximum of death penalty and a minimum of life imprisonment.The 32-year-old model was allegedly shotdead by Manu at the South Delhi's Tamarind Court restaurant and bar owned bysocialite Bina Ramani, whose testimony as key witness, was relied upon by theHigh Court.

The Bench ordered Tony Gill, who was present in the court room, to be taken intocustody forthwith and said that Manu should be arrested from "wherever heis".It also issued a production warrant against Vikas Yadav, who is in judicialcustody, to be present along with two other convicts on Wednesday when it willhear arguments on the quantum of sentence. Later, Manu Sharma surrendered to the police after his father,Congress leader Vinod Sharma, met his counsel Ram Jethmalani. Manu Sharma had been out on bail since April 12 ,2005 and had surrendered to the court in February this year but was later released after theshocking trial court acquittal for him along with all the nine accused. Thetrial court verdict had led to a massive public and media outcry, which forcedthe .Delhi Police to register a case against unknown persons for tampering of evidence and criminal conspiracy.

The High Court Bench, which termed the trialcourt's finding as "perverse", was swayed by the fact that Manu Sharma was never able toaccount for or produce his licensed gun and gave credence to the testimony ofBina Ramani, her daughter Malini and Canadian husband George Mailhot and said that"the two weapon theory was a concoction" which was introduced firsttime by the complainant Shyan Munshi, who had turned hostile in the case.

Bina Ramani (right) with her daughter Malini

Bina Ramani, a key witness in the case,had come under intense public scrutiny for first not having a permit to serveliquor in her restaurant where Jessica had been tending the bar, and also forhaving blood-stains washed off before the police arrived on the scene. She hadalso gone back on her statement in the court on the previous occasions, but itwas different this time in High Court. She remained firm on her earlier stand and told the court that she was not only present at the scene of crime, but also saw Manu shoot Jessica.And she was singled out for special praise by thecourt: "We find (her) a reliable witness andin fact, the only brave person present in that party to muster courage to facethe shooter," the Bench said. It also added, "Whileothers, who claimed to be socialites, did not have the courage to raise a littlefinger to apprehend the culprit who she was chasing and shouting that he (Manu)was the person who had shot Jessica..."

Earlier too, during the hearing on the appeal filed bythe Delhi Police challenging the acquittal of all nine accused including ManuSharma, the Bench noted that Ramani's statements were sufficient to hold theaccused guilty. "Bina Ramani had shown her guts by supporting theprosecution fully. She could have walked off in the right time likeothers," the court had said, referring to the three eye-witnesses includingthe complainant Shyan Munshi who had turned hostile in the case.

The Bench also commended the role of Ramani'sCanada-born husband. "Even George Mailhot, being an old man, had tried tocatch hold of the accused but no one else had gathered the guts to run after theaccused, although hundred people were present in the restaurant".

In the end, it is what clinched the issue. "...Statement of Bina Ramaniclearly shows that she had herself seen Siddharth Vasisht (Manu) shootingJessica Lal as otherwise she had no reason to ask him why he had shot JessicaLall," the court said holding that the prosecution itself had deliberatelymade a concession that she was not an eye witness.

"The trial court, however,instead of itself reading the evidence of Bina Ramani proceeded to wronglyrecord acceptance of this submission of the prosecutor," it said, addingthat "this kind of approach of the trial court has caused grave miscarriageof justice".

The Bench held that statements ofRamani identifying Manu, Tony Gill, Aloke Khanna and Vikas Yadav "findscorroboration from the testimony of Malini Ramani and George Mailhot"

with inputs from agencies