Jessica Lal-Trial Court Judgment PDF

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.
page no.1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.L. BHAYANA
Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi
STATE
VS.
SIDHARTHA VASHISHT ETC.
1.Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
s/o Sh. Vinod Sharma
r/o H.No.229, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh
2.Vikas Yadav s/o D.P.Yadav
r/o 4/16, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad,
UP
Present address
15,BR Mehta Lane, New Delhi
3.Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill
s/o Sh. Shivdev Singh Gill
r/o H.No.541, Sector 10, Chandigarh
Present address
16/1, Second floor,
Friends Colony West, New Delhi
4.Alok Khanna s/o Rajender Kumar Khanna
r/o H.No.D-69, Second Floor,
Defence Colony, New Delhi
5.Amit Jhingan s/o Kewal Krishan Jhingan
r/o B-10/7262, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi
(discharged on 23/11/2000)
6.Shyam Sunder Sharma
s/o Kedar Nath Sharma
r/o 229, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
7.Harvinder Chopra s/o Lakhmi Chand Chopra
r/o 1568, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.
8.Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill
s/o Harpal Singh Gill
r/o Amar Filling Station
in front of Singhwa Bet road,
Jagraon Distt. Ludhiana, Punjab
Present address
141, Phase 2, Mohali, Distt Ropar,Punjab
9.Yograj Singh
s/o Late Sh. Bhagh Singh Buddail
r/o H.No.508, Sector 11B, Chandigarh.
10.Ravinder Krishan Sudan @ Titu
s/o Kewal Krishan
(P.O)

page no.2
r/o H.No.5546 Modern Complex Manimajra,
Chandigarh
Present address
17-15, Wood Side Avenue Newyork,
11373(USA)
& 4122, 75 Street Almherst Newyork (USA)
11.Dhanraj s/o Hugli (PO)
r/o village Mandhi Post Bhesai,
Distt. Gopajganj, Bihar
Present address
IV grade employees,
SK Inter College,
Garhi Chaukhandi, Distt. Gautam Budh
Nagar,
UP
12 Raja Chopra
r/o E-29-Am Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi
SC -105/2001
FIR NO.: 287/99
PS : Mehrauli
U/s. 302/201/212/120B/34IPC
& 27 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
The
prosecution
has
filed
challan against the accused persons u/s.

302/201/212/120B/34
IPC
&
27
Arms
Act
before the court of ld. MM. The Ld. MM

committed this case to the Sessions Judge
as the case was exclusively triable by the
court
of
Sessions.
The
Ld.
Sessions
Judge marked this case to the predecessor

of this court.
2.
The
brief
facts
of
the
prosecution case are that on 29.4.99 at

page no.3
Qutub Colonnade at ''Once upon a time''
restaurant
also
called
Tamarind
Cafe
Thursday party was going on. At Thursday

party the liquor was being
served by the
bartenders namely
Jessica Lal and Shyan
Munshi.
2am
At
about
Shyan
Munshi
was
present at Tamarind cafe situated at Qutub

Colonnade five six persons including
one
waiter were also present there, one person

aged 30-32 years came out from the back
side of bar and asked for two drinks of
liquor.
liquor
The waiter did not serve him the

as
the
party
was
already
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 liquor available with them.
On this that person took out a pistol and
fired
one
shot
another shot at
her near her
which
she
at
the
roof
Jessica Lal
and
fired
which hit
left eye as a result of
fell
down.
Jessica
Lal
was
rushed to Ashlok hospital from where she

was shifted to Apollo hospital. On 30/4/99
in the early morning hours Jessica Lal was
declared dead
3.
also
at Apollo hospital.
Charge u/s 302/201/120B IPC and

u/s
27
Arms Act
has been framed

page no.4
against
accused
Mannu Sharma.
Siddharth
Vashishth
Charge u/s 120B/201 IPC has
been framed against accused Vikas Yadav,

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok
Khanna.
Charge
framed
against
Chopra,
Raja
u/s
212
the
IPC
accused
Chopra,
Vikas
Gill and Yograj Singh.
has
Harvinder
Gill
Sharma.
Charges
Ruby
Charge u/s 201/212
IPC has been framed against accused

Sunder
been
were
Shyam
framed
and
read over to the accused persons to which

all the accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
4.
Prosecution has examined as many
as 101 witnesses in support of its case.
Two
Court
witnesses
have
also
been
examined.
5.
PW1
Shri
Deepak
Bhojwani
deposed before the court that he
has
attended
the party on 29/4/99. At about 11'O clock

in the night he had purchased four coupons
of Rs.100/- each for purchase of liquor.
On that day Jessica
and
Shyan
Munshi
Lal (since deceased)

were
serving
drinks.
Jessica Lal was wearing blue denim shorts

and white half sleeves shirt.
Jessica was
a model by profession. On that day the

usual bar counter was not being used due
to summer and bar counter located outside

page no.5
was being used. The party was attended by
a number of persons.
When he was moving
around in the party he came into contact

with
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu
Sharma,
who
requested
him
to
arrange
liquor for him on which he told him that

liquor was over and the bar was closed.
Then
one sikh gentleman came from behind
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and told

him something and took him away towards
Tamarind
Cafe.
identified
both
Sidhartha
(Witness
the
Vashisht
has
accused
@
correctly
persons
Mannu
Sharma
Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill.)
as
and
He has
further deposed that accused Tony Gill had

come
with
identified
2/3
friends.
accused
accused)
All
of
cafe.
At
that
Alok
them
(witness
Khanna
went
time
bar
to
has
another
Tamarind
counter
had
closed and the waiters were in the process

of removing the empty bottles.
After 15-
20 minutes he heard somebody saying that

Jessica
was
shot.
He
rushed
towards
Tamarind cafe and saw Jessica lying on the

floor.
Jessica
was
carried
to
Ashlok
hospital. He also followed them in his own

car and remained at the hospital for about
1
and
half
hour.
Thereafter
parents
of

page no.6
Jessica also reached Ashlok hospital and
police
also
came
there
and
Jessica
was
then shifted to Apollo hospital where she

was declared dead. From there he went back
to
his
house.
photographs of
Police
showed
him
accused Mannu Sharma and
accused Tony Gill, which he identified.

6.
PW2
Shyan
Munshi
is
an
eye
witness. He has not supported the case of

prosecution fully. He has deposed before
the court that on 29/4/99 he had visited
Tamarind Cafe, it was Thursday night, he
was
attending
the
party
on
that
night.
Alcohol and food was being sold there on

coupons.
He had met Jessica Lal on that
night in the party and the party was going

on at Qutub Colonnade Tamarind Court.
liquor
was
being
served
in
the
The
outside
counter in the open space. Besides Jessica

Lal
and
Malini,
there
were
other
few
persons who were helping in serving liquor

but he was not serving the liquor to the
gathering.
At about 2am there were about
6-7 persons inside the Cafe at that time.

There was a waiter behind the counter. He
went inside the cafe to eat something and
he found Jessica inside the cafe and no
other lady was there. He went behind the

page no.7
counter to get something to eat and saw a
gentleman with white T-shirt who asked the
waiter to serve him two drinks. The waiter
did not pay attention to that gentleman
because
he
was
busy
in
cleaning
up.
Jessica was also there on the other side

of the counter and she told the gentleman
that the party was over and there was no
alcohol to be served. At that time, that
gentleman took out a pistol from the dub
of his pant and fired a shot in the air.
There was another gentleman on the other
side of the counter who fired a shot at
Jessica
Lal
gentleman
and
was
she
fell
wearing
down.
light
That
coloured
clothes. This witness was declared hostile

by the Spl.P.P.
ld.
Special
He was cross examined by

PP
and
in
his
cross
examination he has deposed that the person

who was wearing white T-shirt and asked
for the drinks is not present amongst the
accused
persons.
He
has
denied
that
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

is the person who was wearing white Tshirt
and
had
asked
for
drinks
from
Jessica Lal. He was much taller than the

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.
7.
PW3 Shiv Dass Yadav is also an

page no.8
eye
witness,
hostile.
that
he
but
he
has
also
turned
He has deposed before the court

had
been
working
Colonnade as an electrician.
at
Qutub
On 29/4/99
he was present at the Qutub Colonnade in

connection with his duty.
He was present
on the terrace of Qutub Colonnade and was

disconnecting the temporary lights after
the party was about to be over. At about
2am he had gone to Cafe on hearing noise
of
bursting
of
two
crackers
like
(patakha). He saw Beena Ramani going ahead

of him and he followed her inside the cafe
and saw Jessica Lal lying on the floor in
injured condition. He had not seen anyone
firing a shot at Jessica Lal.
8.
PW4 Shri Karan Rajput is also an
eye witness and has not supported the case

of prosecution. He has not identified the
accused as the person who committed the
murder.
He has deposed before the court
that on 29th
April 99 he was not in Delhi
and had not gone to Qutub Colonnade to

meet his nephew Jitender Raj, an employee
of Beena Ramani at Qutub Colonnade. He has
also denied that he had seen Jessica Lal
being hit by a bullet.

page no.9
9.
PW5
Shri
Parikshat
Sagar
has
deposed that on the date of incident he

was
present
there
with
at
the
party
Amardeep
Gill. He had
Singh
and
had
gone
Tony
Gill
seen Jessica Lal there on
that night. She was serving drinks and he

did not meet any of the accused persons on
that
night
till
the
time
he
remained
there. This witness was declared hostile

and was cross examined by ld. Special PP.
10.
PW6
deposed
April,
Ms.
before
1999
Colonnade.
the
there
It
Malini
was
court
was
Ramani
that
party
Thursday.
on
at
It
has
29th
Qutub
was
farewell party for her stepfather namely

Mr. Mailhot who was going abroad for five
months. She was at the Qutub Colonnade and
Jessica Lal, her mother, Shyan Munshi were
also present there. At about 1.45am she
went with her friend Sanjay Mehtani to the
restaurant to look for something to eat,
She found Jessica in the restaurant and
Shyan Munshi, her electrician and couple
of
waiters
behind food
were
also
there.
She
went
counter with Sanjay Mehtani
and Jessica was also there and was looking

for something to eat and to drink inside
the Tamarind cafe but they did not find

page no.10
anything either to eat or to drink.
When
they were standing there accused persons

came and one of them asked her to have two
drinks who was wearing jean and white Tshirt and was in his mid twenties having
fair complexion
on which she showed her
inability as the bar was closed. Then he

kept on asking her and Jessica for drinks
but he was not served
drink. That person
was told that he could not be given a sip

of whisky even for a thousand rupees to
which he replied that he can even have a
sip of her.
On this she became irritated
and left the place with her friend Sanjay

Mehtani.
When she was going outside she
met her mother and when she was standing

on the other side of the courtyard after
about a minute
Shyan Munshi came running
to her and told her about the gun shot

injury
received
by
Jessica.
On
hearing
this she became unconscious. (witness has

correctly identified
asked
for
drinks
as
the person who had

accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma).

11.
owner
PW7
of
Sidharth
gun
Shri
Naveen
shop
Vashisht
from
@
Chopra
is
where
accused
Mannu
Sharma
the
had
purchased 25 rounds of .22bore on 4/2/99

page no.11
against license.
12.
PW8 Sardar
formal witness.
Gurnam
13.
R.K.Sharma
PW9
conducted
is
post
Dr.
mortem
on
Singh
the
is
who
has
body
of
deceased Jessica. As per PW9 the cause of

death
was
head
injury
due
to
fire
arm
injury which was ante mortem in nature.

The report prepared by Pw9 is Ex.PW9/B.
He has further deposed that injuries no.3
to 6 are consequential injuries to injury
no.3
cause
and
injury
death,
no.3
in
the
was
sufficient
ordinary
course
to
of
nature.
14.
PW10 Dr. Jasvinder Singh is the
Doctor posted at Ashlok hospital who has

taken
injured
hospital
on
Jessica
the
Lal
asking
to
of
Dr.
Apollo
Ashok
Chopra, owner of Ashlok hospital as there

was no arrangement for neuro surgery in
Aaslok hospital.
15.
PW11
ASI
Veer
Singh
Santosh
is
is
formal witness.
16.
PW
12
HC
formal
witness.
17.
PW13
ASI
Kartar
Singh
is
formal witness.
18.
PW 14 Shri Surinder
Singh is a

page no.12
formal witness.
19.
PW15 Sumitabh Bhatnagar was the
Manager in Hindustan Coca Cola Breweries

Limited.
He
has
identified
accused
Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill
and Alok
Khanna as both were employees of Hindustan

Coca Cola Breweries Limited.
20.
PW16 Shri Raj Narain Singh is a
formal witness.
21.
PW17 Sh. Mohd. Zafar is a formal
witness.
22.
PW18
Manvir
PW19
Shri
Singh
is
formal
witness.
23.
Andleep
Sehgal
has
deposed that he had attended the Thursday

party on 29th
wife.
knows
He
April, 1999 along with his
has
further
deposed
that
he
accused Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony
Gill, Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
and Mr. and Mrs.
Aman Gill, Parikshat
Sagar. He also found Mr. and Mrs. Aman

Gill, Pariksat Sagar at the party but he
had not met accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu
Sharma
and
Amardeep
Singh
Gill
Tony Gill on that day in the party.

24.
PW 20 Smt. Bina Ramani is the
owner of Qutub Colonnade. She has deposed

that on 29th April 1999 the Thursday party

page no.13
was held as a special party organized for
farewell for her husband who was leaving
for a world trip. She has deposed that she
knew Jessica Lal, Shyan Munshi being the
friends of her daughter Malini Ramani. On
the night of 29th April 1999 a Thursday
party was going on. At about 1 or 1.30am
after
the
towards
party
was
restaurant
over
and
she
met
walked
Malini
her
daughter. She went into the restaurant and

saw
few
people
standing
next
to
the
counter and she heard a shot. A moment

later, she heard another shot.
She saw
Jessica who was standing with people at

far end falling down.
came
with
another
Then Shyan Munshi
person.
Shyan
Munshi
told her that Jessica had been shot.
The
companion of Shyan was wearing white Tshirt.
She asked him to give his gun.
She then met
her husband and told him
that this was the man who had shot Jessica

Lal and to see in what car he gets into.
She
has
also
identified
the
accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma in the

court.
She
Amardeep
has
Singh
also
Gill
identified
@
Tony
accused
Gill,
Alok
Khanna and Vikas Yadav to be present with

accused Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu Sharma

page no.14
in the party.
She has further deposed
that Jessica was then removed to Ashlok

Hospital
and
from
there
to
Apollo
hospital where she expired.

25.
PW21
ASI
Madan
Pal
is
the
draftsman who has prepared scale site plan

Ex.PW21/A.
26.
PW
22
ASI
Ishwar
Chand
is
Dunglay
is
formal witness.
27.
PW23
Shri
Rouble
formal witness.
28.
PW24
husband
of
George
Mailhot
Ms. Beena
deposed that the
is
the
Ramani. He has
party on 29th April 1999
was organized as farewell party for
him
as he was going
The
for a world trip.
entire party was organised outside in the

courtyard and in the private terrace. He
has also handed over the list of invited
guests at the party which is Ex.PW24/A.
At the time of occurrence he was standing
in the courtyard near a large tree
20
feet
away
from
the
door
about
of
the
restaurant.
He heard two pop shots like
balloon
within
Munshi
and
came
running
few
and
second
told
Shyan
him
someone had fired a shot at Jessica.

went to the restaurant
that
He
and saw Ms. Bina

page no.15
following a person and saying that ''you
are the one give me the gun''.
He then
saw Jessica lying on the floor. He
saw
one another man standing at the door a

Sardarji and then he went to the gate of
Qutub Colonnade in search of a police man
and saw bunch of people coming rapidly.
He
also
saw
the
one
whom
Bina
was
following earlier. The witness has later

on identified that person to be accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu
Sharma.
He
followed Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

on foot and then he disappeared. He went
to police station and informed policeman
about the incident.
He then came back to
the spot and went first to Ashlok hospital

and then to Apollo hospital where Jessica
died.
29.
PW25
Manoj
PW26
Balbir
Kumar
is
formal
is
formal
witness.
30.
Singh
witness.
31.
PW 27 Pratap Malik is a formal
witness.
32.
PW28 Ramesh Chander is a formal
witness.
33.
PW29 Ms. Sahana Mukherjee
formal witness.
is a

page no.16
34.
PW30
Ct.
Sharvan
Shri
Narain
Kumar
is
formal witness.
36.
PW31
is
formal
witness.
37.
PW32 Shri Ved Prakash Madan
is
a formal witness.
37.
PW33 Shri PV Mathew is a formal
witness.
38.
PW34 Shri Tarsem Lal Thappar
is
a formal witness.
39.
PW35 Shri Birbal is
a formal
witness.
40.
PW36 Shri Ram Lal Jagdev
is a
formal witness.
41.
PW37
Shri
Martin
Shri
A.
Raj
is
is
formal witness.
42.
PW
38
Hassan
formal witness.
43.
PW39 Manasvi Mittal
is a formal
witness.
44.
PW40 Ayub Khan
is a formal
witness.
45.
PW41
Dr.
Alok
Chopra
is
the
Managing Director of the Aashlok hospital.

He is a formal witness.
46.
PW42 Deshbandhu LDC
is a formal

page no.17
witness.
47.
PW 43 Shri CN Kumar
is a formal
witness.
48.
PW 44 Shri Shankar Mukhia is a
formal witness.
49.
PW45 Sanjay Garg
is a formal
witness.
50.
at
PW46 Madan Kumar is the waiter

Qutub
Colonnade
restaurant.
He
has
deposed that the occurrence took place at

1.30 or 1.45am, At that time he saw some
people rushing in and some people rushing
out
of
the
restaurant
and
they
were
shouting ''Jessica lal ko goli lag gai''.

He went to restaurant and saw
Jessica
Lal,
guests,
lying
Beena
on
Ramani,
present there.
the
floor.
Jitender
Some
Raj
were
also
Two-three other workers
were also present there
Beena Ramani made
a telephone call and Shiv Dass, brought a

sheet of cloth. Jatinder Raj, Beena Ramani
and
he
wrapped
the
Jessica
Lal
in
the
bedsheet and took her in an Esteem car,

Beena Ramani, Jatinder Raj and he also sat
down
in
hospital.
the
car
and
reached
Aashlok

page no.18
51.
PW47 Jatinder Raj
is a formal
witness.
52.
PW48 Shanti Swaroop Singhal
is
a formal witness.
53.
PW49 Insp. Mahinder Singh Rathi
is a formal witness.
54.
PW50 Harpal Singh, Principal SK
Inter College Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida is

a formal witness.
55.
PW51 Rajiv Talwar
is a formal
witness.
56.
PW52
Chander
Parkash Chabra
57.
Abhijeet
PW53
Ghosal
is
formal witness.
58.
PW54
Varun
Shah
is
formal
witness.
59.
PW55 Mukesh Saini
is a formal
witness.
60.
PW56
Chetan Nanda is a formal
witness.
61.
PW57
Ashok
Dutt
is
formal
witness.
62.
PW58
S. Jaswinder Singh
is a
formal witness.
63.
PW59
formal witness.
Inderjeet
Bakshi
is

page no.19
64.
PW60
Baldev Singh
is a formal
witness.
65.
PW61 Ishdeep Sharma
is a formal
witness.
66.
PW62 Ali Mohammad
is a formal
witness.
67.
PW63 Ram Avtar is a photographer
who has taken photographs of the dead body

as well as the place of occurrence.
The
photographs of the dead body is Ex.PW63/1

and photographs of place of occurrence are
Ex.PW63/3 and PW63/4.
entry
and
ceiling of
exit
of
The photographs of
bullet
hole
of
the
the restaurant are Ex.PW63/5
and PW63/6.
68.
PW64 Ravinder Singh Gill
is a
formal witness.
69.
PW65
Kulvinder
Singh
is
formal witness.
70.
PW66 Major A.R Satish
(retired)
71.
PW67 Niranjan Ram
is a formal
witness.
72.
PW68
formal witness.
Sh.
Mangal
Singh
is

page no.20
73.
PW69 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Atri is a
formal witness.
74.
PW70 Sh. Rohit Bal
that
he
is
profession.
Fashion
has deposed
Designer
by
He knew Beena Ramani, who was
running a complex called Qutab Colonade,

in which there is a restaurant known as
Tamarind
Court
Cafe.
He
also
knew
daughters of Ms. Beena Ramani, Malini and

Geetu.
He has further deposed that in
the year 1999, at Qutab Collonade,
there
used to be special parties on Thursday.

He attended two of them.
It was his third
visit to the party, when Jessica Lal was

shot dead.
It was the night between 29th
and 30th April, 1999, he reached in the

party on the date of occurrence at about
1.14 a.m.
of
his
within about 7,8 or 9 minutes
arrival
there,
suddenly
he
saw
Malini running into the courtyard from the

indoor section to the outdoor section and
she was shouting that Jessica Lal has been
shot.
He
knew Jessica
before the incident.
He saw that soon
after Malini, Beena Ramani

inner section
Lal very well
came from the
of the restaurant.
Beena
Ramani was running in the courtyard area

page no.21
shouting ''catch that man, catch that man,
stop him'' or something like that pointing
towards the Exit.
the
place
Ramani
from
had
He rushed inside to
where
Malini
out
running.
come
and
He
Jessica Lal lying on the floor.

from his mobile at No.100.
was
9811020955.
Then
Beena
saw
He rang
His mobile No.

he
called
his
personal doctor, Dr. Alok Chopra.
Dr.
Alok Chopra advised to send the injured to

the hospital immediately.
to Ashlok Hospital.
Then they went
From Ashlok hospital,
they were sent to Apollo hospital.
75.
PW71 Sh. Harminder Singh
is a
formal witness.
76.
PW72
Lal
Singh
is
formal
Sabrina
Lal
is
Satish
Kumar
is
witness.
77.
PW73 Ms.
formal witness.
78.
PW74
Ct.
formal witness.
79.
PW75 Shri Chander Sen Isar
is a
formal witness.
80.
PW76
SI
Vijay
Kumar
has
conducted part investigation of the case.

81.
witness.
PW77 Gajender Singh
is a formal

page no.22
82.
PW78
Sub Inspector Sarad Kumar
Bisnoi is a formal witness.

83.
PW
79
Shri Rajneesh
Kumar
Gupta MM has conducted Test Identification

parade of accused Amar Deep Singh Gill @
Tony Gill and Alok Khanna
the
proceedings
Ex.PW79/B
respectively.
proceedings
Sidhartha
and has proved
He
in
has
and
also
respect
Vashisht
Ex.PW79/C
proved
of
Mannu
TIP
accused
Sharma
as
Ex.PW79/G.
84.
PW80
ASI
Nirbhay
Singh
is
is
formal witness.
85.
PW81
Insp.
S.S.
Gill
formal witness.
86.
PW82 SI K.P.Malik
is a formal
PW83 HC Devi Singh
is a formal
witness.
87.
witness.
88.
PW84
HC
Mukesh
Singh
is
formal witness.
89.
PW85 SI Pankaj Malik is a formal
witness.
90.
PW86 Jagan Nath Jha
is a formal
witness.
91.
PW87
formal witness.
Insp.
Raman
Lamba
is

page no.23
92.
PW88 Shri O.S. Srivastava Senior
Scientific Officer is a formal witness.

93.
PW89
Dr.
G.D.
Gupta
Scientific Officer (Biology)
Principal
is a formal
witness.
94.
PW90
Sh.
C.K.Jain
Senior
Scientific Officer
95.
B.D.Dubey
PW91
SI
is a formal
witness.
96.
PW92 Inspector Durga Parshad
is
a formal witness.
97.
PW93 HC Prabhakaran is a formal
witness.
98.
PW94 SI Brijender Singh
is a
formal witness.
99.
PW95 Prem Sagar Manocha, Deputy
Director State Forensic Science Laboratory

100.
PW96 HC Chajju Ram MHCM
is a
formal witness.
101.
PW97
HC
Kishan
Chander
is
formal witness.
102.
PW98
Babu
Lal
is
formal
witness.
102.
has
PW99
brought
is Dr. Deepak Vats, who

the
patient Jessica
file
regarding
the
Lal at Apollo hospital.

page no.24
The file
Ex.PW99/1
shows that Jessica
was brought to hospital on 30th April. She

was attended by Dr. Pankaj Arora.
He has
proved the records of hospital. The dead

body of Jessica was handed over to police
station Mehrauli.
103.
PW 100 is
SI Sunil Kumar. He
has deposed that on receipt of DD no.41 A

he proceeded to the spot.
When he reached
at the spot SI Sharad Kumar and Ct. Meenu

Mathew
also reached there and they found
a black Tata Safari parked at the left

side
gate.
He
has
corroborated
the
testimony of PW78 SI Sharad Kumar.
He
recorded the statement of Shyan Munshi at

Ashlok hospital and sent the rukka to the
police
case.
station
On
for
inspection
cartridge
cases
possession.
He
registration
of
the
he
found
two
empty
which
he
took
into
prepared
the
inquest
papers. He handed over the dead body of

Jessica to her sister. He then came back
to the spot and was informed by SHO that
the
Black
lifted
colour
from
the
Tata
spot
Safari
and
the
has
been
same
is
registered in the name of Picadilly Agro

Industries and accused Sidhartha Vashisht

page no.25
@ Mannu Sharma is the Director of the said
company.
He
seized
the
guest
list
Ex.PW24/A, collected post mortem report.

In his presence the SHO
Tony Gill and
arrested accused
Alok Khanna. Tata Sierra of
accused Alok Khanna was also seized by the

SHO
vide
memo
Ex.PW100/11.
Accused
Amardeep Singh Gill@ Tony Gill and accused

Alok
Khanna
were
taken
for
Test
Identification Parade before the MM. But

both
the
accused
persons
participate in the TIP.

Jhingan
was
Sidhartha
also
refused
Accused Amit
arrested.
Vashisht
to
Mannu
Accused
Sharma
refused to participate in the TIP and
also
led
the police party to places where he had

stayed
after
the
occurrence.
The
audio
tape along with the transcript was handed

over
to
the
SHO
by
SI
Bijender.
The
cassette was heard by the SHO and compared

the
same
seized
with
and
the
transcript
sealed
the
same
and
then
in
his
presence. Accused Shyam Sunder Sharma was

also
arrested.
accused Vikas
SHO
interrogated
the
Gill and Harvinder Chopra
and recorded their disclosure statements.

SHO
also
handed
over
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and accused Vikas

page no.26
Gill for getting a petrol pump pointed out
by
them.
Accused
persons
pointed
out
petrol pump in the name and style of Amish

Enterprises
and
told
that
they
had
got
diesel filled up in a Ford car. He also

seized
the
photographs
of
accused
Alok
Khanna and Tony Gill. Accused Yograj was

also arrested and his contessa car which
was used by accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma during his period of escape
was also seized. He also went to NCRB to
find out as to whether any report of loss
or
theft
in
respect
of
.22bore
pistol
no.B-56943 U was lodged anywhere in India

as
the
said
weapon
was
used
in
the
commission of offence, computerized reply

received by him is Ex.PW43/B.
103.
PW101
Insp.
Surender
Kumar
Sharma is a formal witness.

104.
Prosecution has also examined
two court witnesses.

105.
CW1 is Dr. Rawel Singh, who has
prepared the transcription and translation

of
an
audio
tape
given
to
him
by
the
prosecution.
106.
CW2
is
HC
Ram
Dayal
who
is
Muharrar Record Keeper and has brought the

page no.27
original
FIR
register
from
containing FIR No.288/99.
PS
Mehrauli
After examining
101 Pws and two court witnesses CW1 and

CW2 the special PP closed the prosecution
evidence.
107.
Statements of all the accused
persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. All
the allegations of the prosecution were
put to the accused persons but they have
denied
all
the
allegations
of
the
prosecution and have stated that they are
innocent and have been falsely implicated
in this case.
Accused Alok Khanna has examined
one defence witness in his support.
DW1 RK Khanna is the father of
accused Alok Khanna. He has deposed that
police has taken photographs of his son
Alok Khanna and Amarjeet Singh Gill from
him and also took his son to police
station
where Amardeep Singh Gill was
also present. His son and Amardeep Singh
Gill were then taken to Patiala House
Court and from there they were sent to
Tihar Jail.
108.
Arguments heard.
109.
Ld. Special PP for the state has
submitted
that
the
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma was the owner of a
licensed pistol bearing number 5B-6943-Umake P Berreta of .22bore. The license of
the said pistol was issued to the accused
which is Ex.PW7/B and the accused has also
admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC

page no.28
that the license for pistol was issued to
him. He has further submitted that PW14
Surender Singh has also proved on record
that he is the owner of Haryana Gun House
and he had sold the said pistol to accused
Sidhartha Vashisht. PW7 Naveen Chopra has
proved on record that he had sold 25
rounds of .22bore to accused Sidhartha
Vashisht on 4/2/99. Ld. Special PP has
further submitted that the pistol which
was used in the commission of crime has
not been recovered from the accused. The
accused has taken a plea that his pistol
has been lost but the accused has not
lodged any report regarding loss of the
pistol either to the police or to National
Crime Bureau so this circumstance goes
against the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that the prosecution has proved

that the vehicle Tata Safari no.CH-01-W6535 which was used by the accused persons
for
going
to
the
spot
at
the
time
of
occurrence was registered in the name of

M/s
Picadilly
Agro
Industries
India
Limited, Sector 34, Chandigarh and accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma was one
of
the
Director
in
Picadilly
Agro
Industries India Limited in the year 1999
which is proved by PW25 Manoj Kumar and
PW26
Balbir
Singh.
He
has
further
submitted that the other vehicle which was

page no.29
used
by
the
accused
persons
during
crime was Tata Sierra bearing number

26-H-4348
was
alloted to
the
HR-
Amardeep Singh
Gill @ Tony Gill accused by the Coca cola

company while another vehicle Tata Sierra
was alloted to Alok Khanna by the Cocacola
company in which both the accused persons
were working at the relevant time in the
year 1999.
at
the
He has further submitted that
relevant
time
accused
Amardeep
Singh Gill @ Tony Gill was having mobile

phone number 9811100237 while accused Alok
Khanna
was
9811068169.
having
mobile
phone
number
These
mobile
phones
were
provided by their employers i.e. Hindustan

Cocacola Company
time.
He
has
to them at the relevant

further
telephone number 3782072
submitted
that
was installed at
BR Mehta lane where Sh. D.P. Yadav, who is

father
of
residing.
accused
Vikas
Yadav
Accused Vikas Yadav
was
also used
to reside along with his father in the

year 1999 and he made telephone calls from
this telephone number which was alloted to
his father before and after the commission
of crime.
110.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that the Tata Safari no.CH-01-W-

page no.30
6535 which was registered in the name of
M/s
Picadilly
Agro
Industries
India
limited which is a sugar mill in Karnal

and
which
Sidhartha
was
being
Vashisht,
used
Shyam
by
Sunder
accused
Sharma
and Harvinder Chopra all accused persons

in this case who were Directors of the
company
at
the
relevant
time.
These
accused persons have also seen using the

telephones of the Sugar Mill installed in
the
mill
bearing
47651,52,53
telephone
which
were
number
installed
at
Karnal at the time of occurrence. He has

further submitted that vehicle number DL3C-J-5241
was
also
used
by
the
accused
persons for hiding the accused Sidhartha

Vashisht & Others who have
murder
white
in
this
Mahindra
case.
Ford
committed the
This
vehicle
vehicle
and
it
was
has
been registered in the name of RHS Chopra

i.e. Raja Chopra accused.
111.
It is further submitted by ld.
Special PP that the place where incident

took place is called Tamarind court cafe
which was also called by the name Once
Upon a Time Restaurant as the owner Beena
Ramani was running this restaurant and she
had applied for license for the same to

page no.31
the
Authorities.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further submitted that on Thursday private

party used to be arranged in this Tamarind
court cafe.
i.e.
going
On
On the date of occurrence
29/4/99
on
at
the
Thursday
said
party
Restaurant
was
where
liquor was being served by the deceased

Jessica
Lal
and
Shyan
Munshi
who
were
working as bartenders.
112.
date
On the fateful day i.e. on the

of
deceased
occurrence
Jessica
i.e.
Lal
was
on
29/4/99
wearing
Blue
denim short and half sleeves white shirt

as deposed by PW29 Shahana Mukherjee. On
the
date
of
occurrence
Sidhartha Vashisht
with
other
the
accused
@ Mannu Sharma along
co-accused
persons
Amardeep
Singh Gill @ Tony Gill, Alok Khanna

Vikas
Yadav
came
cafe. Accused
to
the
Tamarind
and
Court
Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu
Sharma asked for two pegs of whisky from

the waiter present in the Tamarind court
cafe
but
the
waiter
told
him
that
the
whisky was not available as the party was

over.
Thereafter
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma asked for liquor

from Jessica Lal who was a bartender in
that party on that day but she also told

page no.32
him that the party was over and no liquor
was available with them.
Thereafter PW20
Beena Ramani who was also present there

and PW6 Malini Ramani who were present at
the spot heard two shots fired by someone.
One
shot was fired
in the
air and the
other shot was fired at Jessica Lal which

hit Jessica Lal near her left eye as a
result
of
Munshi
PW2
which
came
she
fell
running
down.
to
PW6
Shyan
Malini
Ramani and told her that Jessica Lal had

been shot at by someone.
She asked him to
make a call to police. She also told the

person present there to remove Jessica Lal
to the hospital. Police was informed on
100 number regarding this incident and the
police after sometime came to the spot but
by that time the injured Jessica Lal had
already
been
removed
to
the
hospital.
First of all the injured Jessica Lal was

taken to Ashlok hospital from there she
was shifted to Apollo hospital where she
was
declared
brought
dead
at
4.37am
as
per the statement of PW99 Deepak Vats. As

per the MLC
Ex.PW99/6 of Jessica Lal from
Apollo hospital she was shifted to AIIMS

hospital as deposed by PW99 Deepak Vats.
Post mortem examination was conducted on

page no.33
the body of Jessica Lal at AIIMS hospital
by Dr. R.K.Sharma PW9.
PW9
conducted
is
post
Dr.
R.K.Sharma
mortem
on
the
who
has
body
of
deceased Jessica Lal. As per PW9 the cause

of death was head injury due to fire arm
injury which was ante mortem in nature.
The PM report prepared by PW9 is Ex.PW9/B.
He has further deposed that injuries no.3
to 6 are consequential injuries to injury
no.3
and
cause
injury
death,
in
no.3
the
was
sufficient
ordinary
course
to
of
nature.
111.
It is further proved on record
by the prosecution that Jessica Lal was

fired
upon
from
pistol
by
person
wearing T shirt at Tamarind Court Cafe. It

has also been proved on record that she
died
on
account
of
fire
arm
injury
received on her head.

113.
Special

PP
that
all
the
three
eye
witnesses including PW2 Shyan Munshi have

categorically stated that they did not see
firing
at
Jessica
Lal.
Similarly
PW1
Deepak Bhojwani has also stated that he

did not see accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

page no.34
Mannu Sharma firing a shot at Jessica Lal.
PW6 Malini
Ramani and PW20-Beena Ramani
have also stated that they did not see

firing a shot at Jessica Lal.
114.
Special
PP has further submitted
that the presence of Alok Khanna, Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and
the spot
Vikas Yadav at
has been proved on record by the
prosecution
witnesses
examined
in
this
case. PW2 Shyan Munshi has been declared

hostile
as
he
did
not
Sidhartha Vasishst @
identify
accused
Mannu Sharma to be
the person who fired a shot at Jessica

Lal. PW3 and PW4 have also turned hostile
and have not identified accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma as the person who
fired a shot at Jessica Lal.
115.
PW1
stated
Deepak
that
he
Bhojwani
had
not
has
seen
also
accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma firing a

shot at Jessica Lal but he confirmed the
presence
of
accused
persons
namely
Sidhartha Vashisht, Amardeep Singh Gill @

Tony Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav at
the spot at the
116.
has
time of occurrence.
He has further submitted that it

been
proved
on
record
beyond

page no.35
reasonable
doubt
that
on
the
date
of
occurrence a Thursday party was going on

at
Tamarind court cafe. It has also been
proved
on
record
that
Sidhartha Vashisht,
Tony
Gill,
Alok
accused
persons
Amardeep Singh Gill @
Khanna
and
Vikas
Yadav
came to attend the party at Tamarind court

cafe. It has also been proved on record
that Jessica Lal was serving the liquor at
the party along with Shyan Munshi and they
were
working as bartenders.
117.
It
has
also
been
proved
on
record that Jessica Lal was shot at by

someone
at
Tamarind
pistol which
court
cafe
from
resulted into her death.
a
He
has further stated that PW20 Beena Ramani

has stated that Shyan Munshi came running
to her who told her that Jessica Lal had
been shot at by someone and
she stopped
one
Vashisht
person
Mannu
namely
Sharma
who
Sidhartha
was
coming
along
with
Shyan Munshi and told him to give her the

gun
as she thought that he was carrying a
gun with him and he had fired a shot at

Jessica Lal. This was the feeling of Pw
Beena
Ramani
Sidhartha
and
Vashisht
she
@
felt
Mannu
that
accused
Sharma
must
have fired a shot at Jessica Lal so the

page no.36
evidence of this witness has to be taken
into
account
as
she
had
reacted
immediately after the murder so it is the

and
none else who
Jessica Lal
has fired
a shot at
on the date of occurrence.
She has also deposed before the court that

other
accused
accused
were
persons
along
with
the
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill,
Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav who attended

the party along with accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. The Special PP

has
further
submitted
that
it
is
the

who killed Jessica Lal by firing a shot
from his pistol and that he is liable to
be convicted for committing the murder of
Jessica Lal.
The ld. Special PP
has
further submitted that these witnesses are

independent witnesses and they have got no
enmity with the accused persons. He has
further
submitted
that
Mailhott
has
deposed
also
PW24
that
George
Shyan
Munshi had told him that Jessica Lal has

been
shot
at
by
someone.
The
first
person who came out of the Tamarind court

cafe was Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

page no.37
who was being followed by Beena Ramani his
wife.
He
has
also
tried
to
follow
Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu Sharma
but he
went away in some car.
He has also stated
that
Vashisht
beside
Sidhartha
Mannu
Sharma accused Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony

Gill, Alok Khanna and accused Vikas Yadav
were also present in the party.
118.
PW70
Rohit
Bal
has
confirmed
that he saw Beena Ramani was shouting at

some
person
and
she
was
running
behind
some person. He has also confirmed that

one gentleman wearing white T shirt had
asked the waiter to serve two drinks to
him.
He
had
also
asked
Jessica
Lal
to
serve two drinks to him but Jessica Lal

also refused to serve him drinks
on which
that person took out a pistol and shot at

Jessica Lal.
119.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that black Tata Safari bearing

no.CH-01-W-6535
was
Sidhartha Vashisht
used
by
accused
@ Mannu Sharma along
with other accused persons namely Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna for
coming
to
Tamarind
Cafe,
the
occurrence on the fateful day.
place
of
He has
further submitted that it has come in the

page no.38
statements of witnesses that this vehicle
was abandoned at the place of occurrence
and
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu
Sharma and three other accused ran away

after leaving the Tata Safari at the spot.
This Tata Safari was later on taken away
by accused Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill
and Vikas Yadav from the spot.
They came
in a white Tata Sierra vehicle and accused

Vikas Yadav drove the Tata Safari from the
place
of
there.
occurrence
He
has
and
further
ran
away
from
submitted
that
the constable on duty at the spot also

gave a danda blow on the black Tata Safari
and broke the window pane of the said car.
He has further submitted that the three
eye witnesses examined by the prosecution
namely PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and
PW4 Karan Rajput should not be believed by
the court as they have been won over by
the
accused
submitted
Amardeep
persons.
that
Singh
He
accused
Gill
has
further
Alok
Khanna,
Tony
Gill
and
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma refused

to join the TIP proceedings conducted by
PW29 Rajneesh Kumar Gupta MM New Delhi and
an adverse inference may be drawn against
these accused persons. Ld. Special PP has

page no.39
further submitted that as per disclosure
statement of accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu
used
Sharma
in
the
he
handed
over
commission
of
the
pistol
crime
to
RK
Sudan. And Ravi Kishan Sudan left India

for USA on 4/5/99 and he disposed of or
destroyed the pistol which was
used in
the commission of crime.

120.
Ld.
submitted
Special
that
all
PP
the
has
accused
further
persons
were in touch with each other after the

commission of crime either on mobile phone
or on landline phone as per statement of
PW 16 Shri Raj Narain, who has proved the
record of mobile phone of accused Amardeep
Singh
Gill @ Tony
shown that
Gill in
several telephone calls were
made from this number.

proved
which it is
by
PW16
Officer MTNL
Raj
Similarly it is
Narain,
Accounts
that STD calls have been
made from telephone number 3782072 which

was installed in the name of Sh. D.P.Yadav
father
of
accused
period
25/4/99
to
Vikas
Yadav
1/5/99
for
for
the
the
calls
made to Chandigarh at the telephone number

of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.
121.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further

page no.40
submitted
that
PW94
SI
Brijender
Singh
Joon has recorded the conversation between

PW 57 Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Soodan who
had
left
for
USA
on
4/5/99
and
the
conversation has been placed on record in

the form of CD between these two persons
but PW57 Ashok Dutt has turned hostile and
has stated that no conversation took place
between
him
and
Ravi
Krishan
Sudan
as
alleged by the police.

122.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that CW1 Dr. Ravel Singh
has
translated
Mr.
the
conversation
between
Sudan and proved that it was in Punjabi

dialect
and
he
has
translated
the
same
into Hindi and then into English and in

his statement he has stated that Mr. Sudan
has not used the word ''Shyamjee'' but has
used the word ''Sangli''.
123.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that this case was given wide

publicity in the media.
The court should
take
of
judicial
notice
the
report
appearing about this case in the newspaper

which
have
been
placed
on
record
by
Special PP.
124.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that remaining accused persons

page no.41
Shyam
Sunder
Sharma,
Harvinder
Chopra,
Raja Chopra, Vikas Gill, Yograj Singh
are
also
for
liable
to
be
convicted
harbouring the accused Sidhartha Vashisht

@
Mannu
Sharma
after
the
commission
Special
PP
of
crime.
125.
Ld.
has
further
submitted that the Black Tata Safari was

registered in the name of Picadilly Agro
Industries
where
working as
Executive
Black
Tata
Harvinder
Safari
Chopra
Director
was
was
and the
assigned
to
Harvinder Chopra by the company.

126.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that police also seized a mobile

phone
of
accused
Yograj
Singh
and
also
seized the Contessa Car of accused Yograj

Singh
which
was
used
by
accused
Yograj
Singh for giving shelter and conveyance to

He
has
Yograj
further
Singh
submitted
had
that
harboured
accused
accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and he

is liable to be convicted u/s 212
IPC.
127.
further
Ld.
Special
PP
has
submitted that accused Harvinder Chopra,

Yograj Singh, Shyam Sunder Sharma
should
be convicted u/s 212 of IPC for harbouring

page no.42
and
for
giving
food,
shelter
and
conveyance to accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma.
128.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that accused Sidhartha Vashisht

@ Mannu Sharma absconded immediately after
the occurrence and PW87 Insp. Raman Lamba
has
stated
that
he
had
gone
to
locate

on
3/5/99,
4/5/99
and
5/5/99
but
this
accused could not be apprehended at all

the
available
Sidhartha
addresses
Vashisht
of
Mannu
accused
Sharma.
5/5/99 he again went to Picadilly
On
hotel
Chandigarh
but could not locate accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
However,
on
Vashisht @
6/5/99
Mannu
accused
Sharma
Sidhartha
Mannu Sharma appeared before
the police at Patiala Tourist Bunglow at

Chandigarh and
he arrested the accused
and
arms
seized
his
license
vide
memo
Ex.PW.80/B. He has further submitted that

PW87 Raman Lamba SI had come to know about
the
involvement
of
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma on 5/5/99 from the

other IO regarding his involvement in the
commission
of
crime
as
the
police
had

page no.43
arrested accused
Singh
Alok Khanna and Amardeep
Gill@Tony
Gill
and
from
their
disclosure statement the police had come

to know about the involvement of accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma in this
case.
129.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that PW101 Insp. SK Sharma has

deposed before the court that SI Brijender
Singh Joon had served a notice u/s 160
Cr.PC on Sh. DP Yadav to produce his son
Vikas Yadav before the police. On 13/5/99
Sh. DP Yadav came to the police station
and
told
that
whereabouts
of
he
his
did
son
not
Vikas
know
the
Yadav.
On
29.5.99 accused Vikas Yadav had appeared

before the police at police Head quarter
and
showed
the
anticipatory
bail
order
from the court. On 29/5/99 accused Vikas

Yadav
surrendered
V.K.Khanna
ld.
in
MM
the
and
court
the
ld.
of
Sh.
Court
admitted him to bail. He was given notice

to join the investigation by the IO in
this case. He was interrogated by the IO
and his disclosure statement Ex.PW100/24
was
recorded.
He
disclosed
that
he
had
handed over Tata Safari black colour to

one
Dhanraj
but
Dhanraj
could
not
be

page no.44
arrested in this case and was declared PO.
Police also interrogated him as to where
he
had stayed after his disappearance and
it has come on record that he
stayed at
Shakti Resort Rajasthan and thereafter he

also stayed at Sariska Hotel at Rajasthan.
Accused
Vikas
Yadav
immediately after
inference
accused
may
that
commission
he
of
had
also
absconded
the occurrence and an

be
drawn
against
the
after
the
absconded
crime
and
he
should
be
convicted on this ground.

130.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that prosecution has been able

to prove that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma had fired a shot at Jessica
Lal as a result of which she later on died
in
the
hospital.
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu Sharma is responsible for the murder

of Jessica Lal. He has further submitted
that accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu
Sharma should be convicted for the offence

u/s 302/201/120B IPC and u/s 27 of the
Arms Act.
131.
submitted
Ld.
Special
that
PP
accused
has
further
Vikas
Yadav,
Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and
Alok
Khanna may be convicted u/s 120B/201 of

page no.45
IPC as they all entered into a conspiracy
to destroy the evidence in this case. He
has further submitted that prosecution has
proved
that
accused
Harvinder
Chopra,
Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill, Yograj Singh, Raja

Chopra
have
Sidhartha
all
harboured
Vashisht
giving him
Mannu
the
accused
Sharma
by
food, conveyance and shelter
and therefore they should be convicted u/s

212
of IPC while accused Shyam Sunder
Sharma may be convicted u/s 201/212 IPC.
Ld. Special PP has relied upon

the following judgments:
(i) AIR 1957 SC 211 in Re Prasadi Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh.
(ii)
AIR 1978 SC 1091 in Re Inder Singh and
another Vs.Delhi Administration wherein it has

been held as under:'' Credibility of testimony, oral
circumstantial,
depends
considerably on a judicial
evaluation of the totality, not
isolated scrutiny. While it is
necessary that proof beyond
reasonable doubt should be
adduced in all criminal cases,
it is not necessary that it
should be perfect. If a case is
proved too perfectly, it is

page no.46
argued that it is artificial; if a
case
has
some
flaws,
inevitable because
human
beings are prone to err, it is
argued that it is too imperfect.
One wonders whether in the
meticulous hypersensitivity to
eliminate a rare innocent from
being punished many guilty
men must be callously allowed
to
escape.
Proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
is
a
guideline, not a fetish and
guilty man cannot get away
with it because truth suffers
some infirmity when projected
through human processes,
Judicial quest for perfect proof
often accounts for police
presentation
of
fool-proof
concoction. Why fake up?
Because the court asks for
manufacture to make truth
look true? No, we must be
realistic.''
(iii)
AIR 1992 SC Page 840 in Re State of UP
Vs. Ashok Kumar, wherein it has been held as

under :'' The circumstance relied
upon must be found to have
been fully established and the
cumulative effect of all the
facts so established must be
consistent only with the
hypothesis of guilt. But this is
not to say that the prosecution
must meet any and every
hypothesis put forward by the
accused however far-fetched

page no.47
and fanciful it might be. Nor
does it mean that prosecution
evidence must be rejected on
the slightest doubt because
the law permits rejection if the
doubt is reasonable and not
otherwise.''
(iv)
AIR 1975 SC 856 in Re Ravinder Singh Vs.
State of Haryana
wherein it has been held as
under :'' Once the evidence of a

witness has been rejected by
the court it should not be made
a basis for judging the veracity
of other evidence by the
yardstick of that unreliable
evidence.''
(v)
1985 Crl. L.J. 1700 Delhi High Court in Re
Harishanker Vs. State wherein it has been held as

under:'' That apart, the appellant
Dharam Raj has failed to bring
any material on the record
which
would
render
his
identification
by
the
complainant
in
court
of
doubtful value. As stated above,
he declined to participate in the
identification parade although
he was produced on the very
next day of his arrest and,
therefore, an adverse inference
can be ligitimately drawn
against him''.

page no.48
(v)Criminal Revision 110 of
(1976) 235 Delhi in
Re Balkishan Vs. State wherein it has been held

as under :'' (i) Evidence Act. S.138Construction of-witness not
cross examined on positive
material assertions affecting
the opposite party-effect of.
HELD
that
where
crossexamination is not directed
against the positive material
assertion affecting the opposite
party, it would amount to the
affected party accepting the
truthfulness of that assertion
unless there is some exception
proof to the contrary.''
I have gone through the aforesaid
judgments. All the aforesaid judgments have been
relied upon by the prosecution. The facts of all the
aforesaid judgments are different from the facts of
the present case and they are not applicable to the
facts of the present case. However there is no
dispute about the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Judges in the aforesaid judgments.
132.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has
submitted that the prosecution has failed

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

page no.49
against
the
accused
persons.
He
has
submitted that all the three eye witnesses

examined in this case by the prosecution
have turned hostile.
The eye witnesses
are PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and

PW4 Karan Rajput.
All these three eye
witnesses have categorically stated that

they
did
not
see
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma firing a shot from

his pistol at Jessica Lal.
All three of
them were declared hostile and in their

cross examination by ld. Special PP also
they denied the suggestion that Sidhartha
Vashist @ Mannu Sharma had fired a shot at
Jessica Lal from his pistol as a result of
which she died. These are the only three
eye witnesses produced by the prosecution
in this case and all three of them have
not supported the case of prosecution, the
accused persons are, therefore, liable to
be acquitted.
133.
further
Ld.
Counsel
submitted
that
for
the
accused
has
case
the
of
prosecution is that one person fired two

shots from one pistol.
One shot was fired
at the roof and the other shot was fired

at Jessica Lal which struck her on her
head as a result of which she died. These

page no.50
two
empty
cartridges
were
taken
into
possession by the IO and were sent to the

FSL.
The
Ballistic
Expert
report
is
Ex.PW89/DB. In the said Ballistic Expert

report
it
cartridges
different
is
opined
have
arms
been
so
that
these
two
fired
from
two
the
theory
of
the
prosecution that both the shots were fired

from the same pistol stands contradicted
with the Ballistic expert report. So the
story of the prosecution that one person
had
fired
two
shots
has
also
been
falsified by the FSL report, the accused

persons
are,
therefore,
liable
to
be
acquitted on this ground alone.

134.
The counsel for accused persons
has further submitted that on the night of

4/5/5-99
accused Amardeep Singh Gill @
Tony Gill was arrested by the police. This

was
the
first
accused
arrested
in
this
case by the police and police recorded his

disclosure
statement
which
Ex.PW100/7.
is
disclosure statement
on
the
In
the
Khanna
morning
was
of
arrested
night
the
said
the names of other
accused persons had figured.

on
same
5/5/99
and
Consequently
accused
he
also
Alok
made
disclosure statement before the police and

page no.51
police
also
seized
the
Tata
Sierra
car
from him. For the first time the names of

accused
persons
were
police
by
Amardeep
Khanna
on
the
disclosed
Singh
night
of
Gill
to
the
and
Alok
4/5/5-99.
On
5/5/99 notice was served on the father of

accused Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu Sharma
by PW87 Insp. Raman Lamba to produce the
accused.
Consequently
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma surrendered before

the police on 6/5/99 at Chandigarh. After
his
arrest
the
police
recorded
his
disclosure statement. The police for the

first
time
had
come
to
know
from
the
disclosure statement of accused Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill & Alok Khanna about
the
involvement
Vashisht
of
accused
Sidhartha
on the night of 4/5/-5-99
and
on 5/5/99 the notice was served on the

father
of
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu
Sharma. On 6/5/99 in response to the said

notice accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu
Sharma surrendered before the police.
The
accused at no point of time had absconded

from his house and he surrendered before
the police
served
immediately after notice was
on the father of the accused. So
the argument of the ld. Special PP that

page no.52
the
accused
had
absconded
immediately
after the commission of crime has no basis

and it does not stand proved on record
that the accused had absconded after the
commission
of
crime
and
was
evading
arrest.
135.
The counsel for accused has
further
submitted
that
the
weapon
of
offence i.e. Pistol used in the commission

of
crime
has
not
been
recovered
from

The accused Mannu Sharma was arrested on
6/5/99.
His
police
remand
was
obtained
from the court upto 12/5/99 and thereafter

it was got extended to 17/5/99 but despite
obtaining remand upto 17/5/99 the police
failed to get recovered the pistol from
which
was
used
in
the
commission
of
offence. The police got the police remand

preponed to 15/5/99 as they
the
arm
recovered
from
failed to get
him.
So
very
important link in the story of prosecution

is missing as the arm i.e. Pistol could
not be recovered from accused Mannu Sharma
which could have connected him with the
commission of crime. Accused persons are,
therefore, liable to be acquitted on this

page no.53
ground.
136.
Counsel for accused has further
submitted that
even PW2 Shyan Munshi has
deposed before the court that two persons

had fired shots at the time of incident
from two different pistols.
had
One person
fired a shot in the roof while the
other person fired a shot at Jessica Lal.

He has denied that the accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma has fired both the
shots
one
in
Jessica Lal.
PW2
Shyan
the
and
another
at
The theory put forward by
Munshi
fired from
roof
that
two
persons
had
two different weapons stands
corroborated
from
Ballistic Experts.
the
evidence
of
The prosecution had
sent two fired cartridges recovered from

the spot to CFSL New Delhi and the CFSL
New Delhi had opined that both the fired
cartridges were different in size and they
were having different characteristics and
from
these
characteristics
they
opined
that these two cartridges were fired from

two
then
different
sent
weapons.
these
two
The
prosecution
cartridges
to
FSL
Jaipur and even the Ballistic expert at

Jaipur
also
opined
that
both
these
cartridge were of different size and they

page no.54
were having different characteristics and
these two cartridges were fired from two
different
weapons.
reports support the

Shyan Munshi
So
both
the
FSL
version given by PW2
that two persons had fired
the shot from two different arms.
The

had fired two shots stands falsified. The
CFSL New Delhi Ballistic expert report is
Ex.PW89/DB
whereas
the
Ballistic Expert report

137.
FSL
Jaipur
is Ex.PW95/2.
submitted that PW2 Shyan Munshi has stated

that SI Sharad Kumar had come to him with
15
photographs
identify the
and
he
was
asked
to
accused persons from these
photographs who had come to Tamarind Cafe

on the date of occurrence and also about
the
accused
Jessica
Lal
who
had
but
he
fired
had
not
shot
at
identified
those photographs to be that of accused

persons
those
as these photographs were not of
accused
persons
who
had
come
to
Tamarind Cafe, on the night of occurrence.

138.
submitted that PW2 Shyan Munshi has stated

that
he can neither speak Hindi nor he
knows how to write in Hindi.
He had made

page no.55
statement to the police only in English
but
the
police
had
translated
his
statement into Hindi and same was not read

over to him before he signed the same and
he
signed
PW2
his
Shyan
statement
Munshi
has
in
good
stated
faith.
before
the
court that he and Jessica Lal were not

serving
liquor
at
the
29/4/99. Even PW23
said
party
on
Rouble Dunglay says
that Shyan Munshi always talked to him in

English
as
Shyan
Munshi
did
not
know
Hindi.
139.
The
further
counsel
submitted
for
that
the
accused
has
police
had
decided in the morning of 30/4/99 to frame

in this case.
PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar
Sharma has deposed before the court that

on 30/4/99 in the morning he had received
information
from
the
senior
police
officers about the involvement of accused

case.
He had also come to know that black
Tata
Safari
belonged
to
found
Sidhartha
at
Tamarind
Vashisht
Cafe
Mannu
Sharma. So he had sent SI Pankaj Malik to

Chandigarh
Safari and
on 30/4/99 to secure the Tata

to arrest accused Sidhartha

page no.56
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma in this case which
means that on 30/4/99 itself police had
taken
a decision to secure the vehicle
black Tata Safari and also to arrest the

in this case which means that on 30/4/99
itself
police
frame
the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu
Sharma
had
in
30/4/99 there
taken
this
decision
case.
Though
to
on
was no evidence available
with the police against accused Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma at all but PW101
Insp.
Surender
instructed by
frame
the
Kumar
Sharma
had
been
senior police officers to
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu Sharma in this case which is clear

from his evidence before the court.
140.
submitted that the presence of PW30 Delhi

Home Guard Sharwan Kumar
the
night
of
at the spot on
29-30/4/99
is
doubtful
because he never went with the SHO PW101

Insp.
Surinder
recorded in
Kumar
DD no.40A
Sharma.
It
is
that at 2.20am the
Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar leaves the

police station along with the DD to give
the copy of DD to SI Rishi Pal who was
present at village Dera which is 12 km

page no.57
away from the police station.
DD
no.40A
Guard
this
Sharwan
witness
Kumar
PW30
left
So as per
Delhi
the
Home
police
station at 2.20am for village Dera along

with copy of DD.
Whereas PW101 has stated
that he took Sharwan Kumar Delhi Home

Guard along with him in his Gypsy at
2.25am to Qutub Colonnade as he was
available at the gate of Police station.
The version of PW101 stands contradicted
with the contents of DD no.40A.
141.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has
further submitted that PW100 SI Sunil
Kumar has deposed before the court that PW
101 Insp. Surender Sharma main IO met him
at 3.15pm on 30/4/99 and informed him that
the vehicle no.CH-01-W-6535 which was used
in the commission of crime by accused
Mannu Sharma had been found by the police
in Karnal and they had taken possession of
the said vehicle in Karnal.
So from the
evidence of
PW 100 Sunil Kumar it has
become clear that vehicle no.CH-01-W-6535
was seized by the police on 30/4/99 itself
in Karnal
and the story put forward by
the police that the vehicle was seized at
NTPC colony at Noida
has been concocted
and introduced by the police. The police
has also falsely introduced the false
story of recovery of one live cartridge of
.22 bore from the Tata Safari at Noida.
Once this vehicle has already been seized
by the police at Karnal there is no
question of the same being again seized by
the UP police at NTPC chowk Noida. It

page no.58
appears that after seizing the vehicle at
Karnal the Delhi police in connivance with
the
UP
Noida
police
got
this
vehicle
seized by Noida police in order to show

that the said vehicle was seized by Noida
police and not by Delhi police at Karnal
on 30/4/99.
142.
Ld.
Counsel
further
submitted
for
that
accused
there
has
are
witnesses examined on the point of parking

of
black
Tata
Safari
and
about
its
presence at Qutub Colonnade at the time of

incident
and
its
removal
from
Qutub
Colonnade by the accused persons after the

incident.
These 5 witnesses are PW78 SI
Sharad Kumar, PW83 Devi Singh, PW100 S.I.

Sunil Kumar, PW101 Insp. Surender Sharma
and PW30 Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar.
He
has
further
pointed
out
that
PW78
Sharad Kumar has deposed before the court

that
his
statement
u/s
161
Cr.PC
was
recorded by the IO on 30/4/99 after the

sunset
at
the
police
station.
statement u/s 161 Cr.PC
In
his
he has nowhere
stated about the presence of Black Tata

Safari
at the spot i.e. Qutub Colonnade
nor he has stated about its removal by the

accused persons
from Qutub Colonnade in

page no.59
his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. He
has deposed for the first time before the
court
about
these
improvement. He
facts
which
is
an
has further pointed out
that PW83 Devi Singh has deposed before

the court that his statement was recorded
by the police u/s 161 Cr.PC but in the
said statement he has nowhere stated about
the presence of Black Tata Safari at the
spot
i.e.
about
the
from
the
Qutub
Colonnade
removal
spot
by
of
the
nor
Black
he
Tata
accused.
says
Safari
He
has
stated for the first time in the court

which
is
Similarly
an
improvement
PW100
SI
made
Sunil
by
him.
Kumar
has
deposed before the court that when he went

to the spot he asked SI Sharad Kumar about
the removal of Black Tata Safari
accused
persons
from
the
spot
by the
but
SI
Sharad Kumar did not know about this fact

Since SI Sharad Kumar who had been present
at the spot at the relevant time
had no
knowledge about the presence of Black Tata

Safari at the spot i.e. Qutub Colonnade
nor he has stated about its removal by the
accused persons
from Qutub Colonnade in
his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. He

has deposed for the first time before the

page no.60
court
about these facts
improvement. He
which is an
has further pointed out
that PW8 Devi Singh
has deposed before
the court that his statement was recorded

by the police u/s 161 Cr.PC but in the
said statement he has nowhere stated about
the presence of Black Tata Safari at the
spot i.e at Qutub Colonnade nor he says
about
the
removal
of
black
Tata
Safari
from the spot by the accused persons. He

has stated for the first time in the court
which
is
witness.
an
improvement
Similarly
made
PW100
by
has
the
deposed
before the court that when he went to the

spot he asked SI Sharad Kumar about the
removal
of
Black
accused
persons
Tata
from
Safari
the
by
spot
but
the
SI
Sharad Kumar did not know about this fact.

Since SI Sharad Kumar who had been present
at the spot at the relevant time
had no
knowledge about the presence of Black Tata

Safari at the spot it shows that
neither
the Black Tata Safari was present at the

spot
nor
accused
the
same
persons
as
was
removed
alleged.
by
the
PW100
SI
Sunil Kumar in the cross examination has

stated that he had written about the Black
Tata Safari in the case diary. He opened

page no.61
the
case
diary
in
the
court
and
after
looking at the first page he closed the

same and he told the court that he does
not
want to see
the case
diary
which
further confirms that there was no mention

of
Black
diary
as
Tata
Safari
alleged
by
even
SI
in
Sunil
the
case
Kumar
so
there was no question of presence of Black

Tata Safari at the spot or its removal by
the accused persons.
143.
Counsel for the accused that PW30 Delhi

Home
Guard
Sharwan
Kumar
has
deposed
before the court that he had given the

information about
Tata
Safari
persons
to
and
one
the presence of Black

its
Head
removal
by
Constable
accused
who
was
present at Qutub Colonnade at 3.40-3.45am.

He
does not remember
if he
has met SI
Sharad Kumar at Qutub Colonnade while SI

Sharad Kumar claimed that he reached the
spot
in
the
morning
on
the
date
of
incident but PW30 Delhi Homeguard Sharwan

Kumar does not endorse his presence at the
spot which further shows that PW30 Delhi
Home Guard Sharwan Kumar was not present
at the spot at that time.
144.
Ld.
Counsel
for
accused
has

page no.62
further
submitted
that
Surender
Sharma
deposed
has
PW101
Insp.
before
the
court that when he came back at the spot

he found SI Sharad, SI Sunil Kumar and
Delhi Home guard PW30 Sharwan Kumar at the
spot and all of them told him about the
removal of Black Tata Safari from the spot
by
one
Sikh
gentleman
and
one
another
person.
145.
Ld.
Counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that PW47 Jitender Raj

has deposed before the court that he was
working as a Manager at Qutub Colonnade.
He was present in his room at the time of
incident
removing
and
he
helped
Bina
Ramani
in
the injured Jessica Lal to the
Ashlok
hospital.
He
came
back
Ashlok
hospital
to
Qutub
from
Colonnade
the
at
3.15am in the morning and at that time he

only found one guard of Qutub Colonnade
and one police gypsy.
He did not find any
police official guarding the spot. He has

further deposed that there was no black
Tata Safari present at Qutub Colonnade at
that time, nor he has stated about the
removal
of
Black
Tata
persons from the spot.
Safari
by
two

page no.63
146.
further
Ld.
Counsel
submitted
for
that
accused
PW30
Delhi
has
Home
guard Sharwan Kumar has been introduced as

a
false witness in
this case.
In the
cross examination PW30 has admitted that

he is 27 years old. He was not eligible to
become
constable
as
he
was
not
Matriculate and for these two reasons he

was not eligible to
be appointed as a
constable.
147.
Ld.
further
Counsel
submitted
constable
one
for
that
for
should
accused
becoming
be
cross
examination
minimum
Matriculate and his age should be

18 to 21 years.
has
between
He has also stated in

that
he
has
never
applied for appointment as a constable in

the Delhi police. He was made a constable
in Delhi police after the registration of
this case and on the recommendation of the
IO of this case. It is further submitted
that PW30
Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar
was made constable out of the way although

he was not eligible to become a constable
on account of his being overage and his
not being even matriculate but still he
was made a constable as he has been made
an important witness in this case by the

page no.64
Delhi police.
148.
Ld.
further
Counsel
submitted
foregoing
evident
that
discussions
that
Black
for
the
Tata
story
Safari
accused
has
in
view
the
it
has
of
at
of
become
presence
of
spot
was
the
introduced by the police and the story of

removal
of
Black
Tata
Safari
by
the
accused persons has also been introduced

by
the
police
implicate
the
in
order
accused
to
falsely
persons
in
this
case.
149.
Ld.
Counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that PW86 Jagan Nath Jha

was working as a waiter at Qutub Colonnade
restaurant on the night of incident. He
has deposed before the court that he was
working
as
waiter
at
the
time
of
incident. He had not seen any Black Tata

Safari at Qutub Colonnade on the night of
29-30/4/99.
There is no mention of Black
Tata Safari even in his statement u/s 161

Cr.PC. He has further deposed that on the
night
of
official
29/4/99
there
was
available
on
duty
no
police
at
Qutub
Colonnade and there was only guard of the

restaurant who was on duty at the spot.
150.
Ld.
Counsel
for
accused
has

page no.65
further submitted that it has come in the
cross examination of SI B.D.Dubey PW91 of
PS
Sector 24 Noida
that
on 2.5.99 on
receipt of information at Police station

at Sector 24, Noida UP on telephone that
the vehicle involved in Jessica Lal murder
case was parked at NTPC township.
there
at
about
6.30pm
and
He went
seized
the
vehicle. He also conducted the search of

the
black
Tata
Safari
which
was
parked
there and he found one live cartridge of

.22 bore. In the cross examination he has
categorically stated that he did not find
any
broken
pieces
of
glass
inside
the
vehicle and there is no mention of the

broken pieces of glass in the seizure memo
Ex.PW101/1 vide which he has seized the
articles lying in the black Tata Safari.
He
has
further
deposed
that
when
he
reached back to the police station Noida

he found police of PS Mehrauli along with
media team present at the police station.
He
joined
the
police
officials
of
PS
Mehrauli in the investigation and recorded

their
statement.
Surender
Sharma
Whereas
has
deposed
court that on 2.5.99 he

senior
police
PW
101
Insp.
before
the
came to know from
officers
that
Black

page no.66
Tata Safari wanted in this case had been
seized by the police of Sector 24, Noida
UP. On 3/5/99 he went to Noida and after
getting
the
orders
from
Magistrate Ghaziabad
the
Judicial
he was handed over
the articles seized by the police along

with
Tata
Safari
which
also
included
broken glass pieces which were found in

Black Tata Safari whereas SI B.D.Dubey has
stated that he had never handed over Black
Tata Safari
of glass
alongwith any broken pieces
seized in the car to Mehrauli
police on 3/5/99 but he handed over the

vehicle and articles only on 2/5/99. He
has
categorically
over
of
police
the
broken
of
PS
categorically
glass
denied
were
about
pieces
of
Mehrauli.
stated
that
recovered
handing
glass
He
no
from
has
pieces
Black
to
of
Tata
Safari nor the same were handed over by SI

Dubey to PW101.
The broken glass pieces
have been planted by the police in order

to falsely implicate the accused in this
case. He has also drawn my attention to
the application Ex.PW101/1 which was moved
by
Insp.
Magistrate
Surender
Gaziabad
Sharma
and
before
in
the
that
application he has only made request to

page no.67
hand over the Tata Safari vehicle seized
by the UP police.
The application is made
on 3/5/99 and ld. Magistrate has issued

orders
for
releasing
only
Black
Tata
Safari No.CH-01-W-6535 to Insp. Surender

Sharma
and
no
other
articles
have
been
ordered to be released in the said order

dated
3/5/99.
Magistrate at
Since
the
Judicial
Gaziabad had only ordered
for the release of Black Tata Safari to

Insp. Surender Sharma PW101 so the police
of PS Sector 24 Noida was directed only to
release Black Tata Safari to the said Insp
and no other article was handed over to
the IO as deposed by him in this court
much less the pieces of glass as alleged
by
him. Even PW91
SI B.D.
Dubey of PS
Sector 24, Noida has no where stated that

he had recovered broken pieces of glass
from
Black Tata Safari, so the question
of handing over of Black Tata Safari along

with the broken pieces of glass does not
arise.
Nor
mentioned in
vide
which
seized
Safari.
by
the
pieces
glass
are
the seizure memo Ex.PW74/A

articles
SI
So
of
were
recovered
BD
Dubey
from
this
story
of
and
the
Tata
taking
into
possession broken pieces of glass by Insp.

page no.68
S.K. Sharma from the police of Noida has
been
concocted
and
planted
in
order
to
create false evidence against the accused

persons in this case and the same cannot
be believed to be true and trustworthy.
151.
Ld.
further
Kumar
Counsel
submitted
had
for
that
accused
PW100
SI
conducted
proceedings on 30/4/1999
has
Sunil
inquest
but he has not
mentioned about the presence of Black Tata

Safari
at
the
spot.
PW100
has
further
deposed that he had recorded the statement

of Delhi Home guard PW30 Sharwan Kumar as
soon
as
he
4.30am
about
Safari
from
deposed
reached
the
the
that
the
spot
removal
spot.
when
of
He
he
at
about
Black
Tata
has
further
recorded
the
statement of Delhi Home Guard PW30 Sharwan

Kumar the case was still u/s 307 IPC and
the information about the death of Jessica
Lal has not been received by him but the
perusal of the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of
Home Guard PW30 Sharwan Kumar
shows that
section 302/201 are mentioned on the top

of the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC.
152.
In the cross examination PW100
has also admitted that he had mentioned in

the
case
diary
about
the
details
of

page no.69
presence of Black Tata Safari at the spot
and
its
removal
by
someone
from
there.
This witness was ordered to see the case

diary but after going through the first
page of case diary he closed the same by
saying that he does not want to see the
case diary. So it is evident that after
going through the case diary he finds that
there was no mention of removal of Black
Tata Safari from there so he has refused
to see the case diary. Even otherwise the
testimony of PW30 Delhi Home Guard Sharwan
Kumar is a purchased version as he has
been
made
constable
in
Delhi
police
despite the fact that he was ineligible to

become
a constable as he was over age and
was under qualified. PW30 Delhi Home Guard

Sharwan Kumar was recruited as a constable
against rules so that he will depose in
favour
of
Delhi
Police
and
against
the
accused persons. So the testimony of PW30

has been purchased by Delhi Police. His
testimony
is
not
genuine
and
truthful
testimony.
153.
stated that prosecution has also failed to

prove that accused Mannu Sharma and other
accused persons came to the spot in Black

page no.70
Tata Safari bearing no.CH-01-W-6535. The
prosecution has also failed to prove that
this car was being used by accused Mannu
Sharma
at
the
relevant
time.
The
prosecution examined PW48 Shanti Swaroop

who
has
Black
deposed
Tata
before
Safari
the
court
that
to
M/s
belongs
Piccadilly Agro Industries Ltd. and this

car was alloted to Harvinder Chopra
who
was working as Executive Director of the

company at the relevant time.
Surender Sharma
examination
statement
of
PW101 Insp.
has admitted in the cross
that
any
he
did
witness
not
to
record
the
effect
that Mannu Sharma was using the Black Tata

Safari at the relevant time. None of the
prosecution witnesses has deposed before
the court that accused Mannu Sharma had
been
using
Black
Tata
Safari
at
the
relevant time or at the time of incident.

So
the
prosecution
has
failed
that accused Mannu Sharma
to
prove
or any other
accused had come to the spot in Black Tata

Safari and there is no evidence to prove
about
the
removal
of the
same by the
accused persons from the spot.

154.
further
The
counsel
submitted
that
for
accused
has
prosecution
has

page no.71
alleged that accused Mannu Sharma had been
using mobile phone no.9811096893 in order
to contact the other accused persons after
the commission of crime but it has not
been
proved
phone
on
belongs
witness
has
record
to
that
Mannu
been
this
Sharma
produced
to
mobile
nor
show
any
that
this phone was being used by Mannu Sharma.

The only evidence against the accused is
disclosure
statement
of
accused
Mannu
Sharma wherein he has stated that he has

been
using
the
aforesaid
mobile
phone.
PW101 Insp.Surender Sharma has stated that

the aforesaid mobile phone or its sim card
has not been
Sharma.
recovered from accused Mannu
Since
the
mobile
phone
and
sim
card has not been recovered from accused

in this case nor any evidence has been
produced by the prosecution to prove that
this phone was being used by accused Mannu
Sharma so it is unsafe to say that accused
Mannu
Sharma
phone
for
persons
using
contacting
from
Prosecution
mobile
was
has
phone
the
the
this
failed
said
other
mobile
to
no.9811096893
mobile
accused
phone.
connect
with
the
the
accused Mannu Sharma.

155.
The prosecution has examined PW1

page no.72
Deepak
Bhojwani
who
claims
that
he
was
present at the spot in the said party at

the
time
of
incident
but
PW24
George
Mailhott has deposed before the court that

he had submitted a list of guests who had
attended the party on 29/4/99 at Tamarind
Cafe
at
Qutub
submitted
by
Colonnade.
him
to
The
the
list
police
is
Ex.PW24/A. In the said list Ex.PW24/A the

name
of
Deepak
Bhojwani
mention at all.
does
not
find
PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has
also deposed before the court that he had

been very friendly with Jessica Lal and
used to visit her house before her death
and he was acquainted
parents
of
Jessica
Lal
with sisters and

deceased
but
PW
Sabrina Lal, who is sister of the deceased

Jessica Lal has categorically stated that
when she went to Ashlok hospital she met
few persons present there but she no where
mentioned the name of Deepak Bhojwani who
was
present
Deepak
there.
It
shows
that
PW1
Bhojwani was not present at the
spot on that day although he claims that

he had gone to Ashlok hospital after the
injured was removed to the said hospital.
PW1 Deepak
Bhojwani has further deposed
that
Ashlok
from
hospital
he
went
to

page no.73
Apollo
he
hospital.
met
the
At
Apollo
police
and
hospital
he
gave
the
description of the person who was involved

in the commission of crime to the police.
He
has
Doctor
further
deposed
that
declared
Jessica
Lal
after
as
the
dead
he
went to his house and before going to his

house he gave all the relevant information
to the police whereas PW100 SI Sunil Kumar
has
deposed
before
the
court
that
at
5.35am he got the DD regarding death of

Jessica Lal
and he sent SI Sharad Kumar
and SI Rishi Pal to Apollo hospital. This

means that these two policemen must have
reached
7am.PW
the
78
Apollo
SI
hospital
Sharad
Kumar
at
has
about
nowhere
deposed that he met Deepak Bhojwani at the

hospital
or
that
Deepak
Bhojwani
told
anything about Mannu Sharma to him.
PW29
Shahana Mukherjee has also deposed before

the court that she did not see the police
at the Apollo hospital although she
police
at
Ashlok
hospital.
met
Similarly
Sabrina Lal PW73 has deposed that police

was
not
present
at
Apollo
hospital
although she met police at Ashlok hospital

which shows that PW1 Deepak Bhojwani is
telling a lie when he says that he met the

page no.74
police at Apollo hospital and had told the
police about the facts of the case and
about
the
persons.
Apollo
description
Since
the
hospital
of
the
accused
police
had
reached
7am
so
only
after
the
question of meeting Deepak Bhojwani with

the
police
at
the
question
and
the
Bhojwani
seems
hospital
is
testimony
to
untrustworthy. PW92
be
out
of
of
Deepak
unreliable
and
ACP Durga Prasad has
also deposed before the court that name of

Deepak Bhojwani was not found in the list
Ex.PW24/A
but
interrogation
of
it
occurred
during
some
witnesses.
The
police recorded the statement of PW Deepak

Bhojwani on 14/5/99 i.e. After 15 days of
the occurrence.
Since this witness was
known to the family of deceased so he was

introduced later on as a false witness in
order
to
persons.
falsely
implicate
the
accused
It has come on record that PW1
Deepak Bhojwani has been summoned by the

police at the police station on 14/5/99
and on that day accused Mannu Sharma was
also on police remand and was present in
the police station. This accused was shown
to
Deepak
introduced
Bhojwani
as
who
witness
was
in
later
this
on
case.

page no.75
Moreover the
photographs of the accused
were published
in the leading newspaper
dated 7/5/99 of Tribune so the conducting

of TIP of accused after the publication of
photographs
in
meaningless.
the
The
newspaper
police
has
is
also
not
given any satisfactory explanation as to

why statement of PW1 Deepak Bhojwani was
recorded after 15 days of the occurrence.
PW1
Deepak
Bhojwani
has
made
several
improvements in the statement made before

the
court
so
his
statement
believed to be trustworthy.
cannot
be
PW1 Deepak
Bhojwani has stated that he met accused

Mannu Sharma at 1am at Tamarind court and
in 15 minutes he heard about the firing
of the shots while this incident had taken
place after 2am.
put
to
PW1
identify
by
A leading question was

Special
PP
if
he
can
2-3 persons accompanying accused
Mannu Sharma and PW1 gave the names of

Tony
Gill
and
Alok
Khanna.
This
is
an
improvement in his statement made by him

before the court over the statement made
to
the
police
evidence of
u/s
161
Cr.PC
So
the
PW1 is not trustworthy and
same is liable to be rejected.

156.

page no.76
submitted that PW6 Ms. Malini Ramani has
deposed that the
person who had asked for
two drinks from her and Jessica Lal just

looks like Sidhartha Vashisht.
identification in the
the
cross
This is no
eyes of law.
examination
she
has
In
admitted
that she had seen accused Mannu Sharma
in
the police station. She has also admitted

in the cross examination that photograph
of the accused Mannu Sharma was shown to
her between
1/5/99 to 5/5/99.
If the
photograph of accused has been shown to

the accused before holding TIP of accused
then
the
conducting
of
TIP
of
accused
becomes meaningless. PW6 has also admitted

in cross examination that on 7/5/99 she
had visited the police station along with
her parents and the accused Mannu Sharma
was shown to her and to her parents
at
the interrogation centre. So the refusal

to join the TIP by accused Mannu Sharma is
justified.
her
She has further stated that
statements were recorded
dates
on several
by police which were signed by her
but ld. Special PP has told the court that

there are only two statements of Malini
Ramani
on the record
and
other statement on record.
there is no

page no.77
157.
submitted
that
PW20
Beena
Ramani
has
stated before the court that Jessica Lal

was standing along
with
some person when
she heard one shot and a moment later she

heard
another
shot
being
fired
Shyan
Munshi came to her along with one more

person and told her that Jessica Lal had
been shot. She stopped the companion of
Shyan
Munshi,
she
has
pointed
out
that
accused Sidhartha Vashisht was some what

like that person. She has again deposed
that
it
Sidhartha
does
not
Vashisht
satisfy
is
the
her
same
that
person
which means that Sidhartha Vashisht is not

the same person who was accompanying Shyan
Munshi whom she had stopped at that time.
If we read the statement of Beena Ramani
PW20 in between the lines it is clear that
she
has
categorically
stated
that
Sidhartha Vashisht is not the same person

who was accompanying Shyan Munshi. So she
has failed to identify accused Sidhartha
Vashisht as the accused in the court. She
has further deposed that she thinks that
Amardeep Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav
were
also
with
him.
She
has
further
deposed that she was at the stairs of the

page no.78
restaurant when she heard two shots and
she saw Jessica Lal falling on the ground.
So the evidence of PW20 Beena Ramani is of
no help to the prosecution.
158.
Ld.
Counsel
further
submitted
for
accused
that
PW24
has
George
Mailhott has deposed before the court that

he was present at Tamarind cafe
when he
heard two shots upon which he entered the

Tamarind
cafe
chasing a
and
he
saw
Beena
Ramani
person inside the restaurant.
He, thereafter went to the gate outside to

look for the police.
159.
submitted
that
accused
George
Mailhott
, Beena Ramani and Malini Ramani were also

booked
by
the
prosecution
Excise
Act and a deal was struck between
the prosecution
that
if
under
the
and the accused persons
they
help
them
in
investigation then the prosecution
the
will
help them in getting a lenient view in the

Excise Act case against them. Examination
in
chief
17/10/2001
18/10/2001.
of
PW24
and
Ld.
was
started
on
was
concluded
on
SPP
had
an
filed
application for early hearing and for preponing the Excise Act case filed by them

page no.79
against the aforesaid accused persons and
that case was fixed for 2/2/2002.
This
application was heard by MM on 31/10/2001

and the case was preponed to 24/11/2001.
On
24/11/2001
adjourned to
all
the
Mailhot,
the
case
12/12/2001.
accused
Malini
again
On 12/12/2001
persons
Ramani
was
namely
and
George
Bina
Ramani
pleaded guilty and they were let off after

imposing a fine of Rs.200/- each on these
accused persons.
between
accused
On account of this deal

persons
and
prosecution
all the three witnesses have deposed in

favour
of
the
prosecution
accused persons and
against
the
PW24 George Mailhott
has admitted in the cross examination that

excise case was pending against him and he
had asked his lawyer to get it preponed.
160.
submitted that PW 24 George Mailhott was

not present at the time of this incident
and
he
has
been
examined
prosecution as a false
by
the
witness. It is
stated that PW86 has deposed before the

court that George Mailhott had gone out of
Qutub Colonnade at 12.30 midnight on the
date of occurrence and came back to the

page no.80
restaurant Qutub Colonnade after Jessica
Lal had been removed to the hospital. PW
46
Madan
Kumar
who
restaurant has
was
waiter
in
the
also deposed that George
Mailhott left at 12.30 night and he did

not see
George Mailhott thereafter at the
restaurant
nor
he
saw
George
Mailhott
present at the time of this incident.

161.
Counsel
for
cartridges
the
accused
recovered
from
that
the
the
spot
of
crime were having a word 'c' on the cap of

each
cartridge
and
the
same
was
manufactured by CCI company of USA whereas

the prosecution
Sidhartha
has proved that accused
Vashisht
had
purchased
25
cartridges of make KF from Sonu Gun house

Haryana on 4/2/99 at Ambala.
These 25
rounds were manufactured at Kirki Factory

in India as KF was written on the cap of
the shell and KF stands for Kirki factory.
It
has
come
in
the
evidence
of
Naveen
Chopra PW7 that all these rounds were made

in India
and were manufactured in Kirki
factory. They have no authority to sell

cartridges
cartridges
which
which
are
foreign
were
used
made.
The
in
the
commission of crime were manufactured by

page no.81
CCI company of USA.
This fact has been
established by the CFSL expert namely PW95

Prem Sagar Minocha who was examined in the
court and he categorically stated that the
cartridges which were sent for analysis to
the CFSL were having mark 'C' on its cap
and these were manufactured by CCI company
of USA which means that cartridges which
were used in the commission of crime were
neither
purchased
by
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht at any point of time nor were

used by him in the commission of crime in
this case.
162.
It
is
further
submitted
by
counsel for the accused that PW87 Insp.

Raman Lamba has deposed before the court
that on 6/5/99 accused had handed
over
the arms licence to him which was seized

vide memo Ex.PW80/B. This memo does not
bear
the
signatures
of
Harish
Ghai
advocate who was present when the accused

was
Ghai
produced
even
accused
signed
of
but
the
arms
signed by Mr.Ghai.
the
the
Sidhartha
Ex,.PW80/A
seizure
before
police
arrest
and
Mr.
memo
of
Vashisht
which
is
memo
regard
to
licence
with
has
not
been
PW87 has stated that

page no.82
Harish
Ghai
had
refused
to
sign
the
seizure memo whereas PW80 SI Nirbhay Singh

has stated that only Insp. Raman Lamba can
explain
as
to
why
Harish
Ghai
had
not
signed the seizure memo but he does not

remember
anything.
It
is
very
evasive
reply given by PW87 and it shows that the

arm licence was never seized from accused
Sidhartha Vashisht as it does not bear the
signatures of Harish Ghai who was present
at the time of seizure of the same and the
same has been planted on the accused in
this case.
163.
Ld.
Counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that arms licence which

was seized by
deposited
Insp. Raman Lamba
had been
along with other articles on
6/5/99 seized
from accused Mannu Sharma
with the malkhana muharir of PS Mehrauli

but PW96 HC Chajju Ram Malkhana Muharir
has
stated
deposited
that
with
Insp.
him
on
Raman
Lamba
had
only
one
6/5/99
purse containing his photo, diary, video

cassette etc. but there is no mention of
deposit
of
arm
licence
in
the
malkhana
register having been deposited on 6/5/99

by Insp. Raman Lamba. This further proves
that no such arms licence was ever seized

page no.83
by Insp. Raman Lamba on 6/5/99.
164.
Counsel for the accused that police has

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt
and
accused
the
accused
persons
are
persons.
liable
The
to
be
acquitted.
165.
Counsel for accused that PW94 SI Brijender

Singh
has been examined by the police who
has deposed that he had taken Ashok Dutt

to the telephone booth and Ashok Dutt had
a talk to Ravinder Sudan @ Titoo at USA
and he made three telephone calls and had
a
detailed
conversation
with
him
with
regard to the pistol which was handed over

to him by the accused Mannu Sharma which
was
used
Accused
in
the
Ravinder
commission
Sudan
of
Titu
crime.
told
him
that the said pistol was with Shyam Sunder

Sharma
but
witness
has
verified
as
in
cross
stated
to
examination
that
whether
he
the
had
this
not
telephone
no.001-526-7751-236 was installed in the

name of Ravinder Sudan at USA or not.
he
had
made
enquiry
about
the
Nor
other
telephone number bearing no.001-7184768403

about
its
ownership
and
about
its

page no.84
installation
at
the
house
of
Ravinder
Sudan. So it has not been proved on record

that the telephone which was dialed from
India to America was in fact installed in
the name of Ravinder Sudan or not. In the
cross examination PW94 SI Brijender Singh
has
further
stated
that
there
is
no
documentary proof to show that the phone

of
the
person
in
America
was
that
of
Ravinder Sudan @ Titu as the audio tape

was not sent for examination to CFSL to
prove that the said phone voice belonged
to Ravinder Sudan @ Titu.
proved
on
America
not.
record
was
that
actually
So it is not
person
called
in
Ravinder
Sudan
or
PW57 Ashok Dutt who had dialed the
telephone
hostile
at
and
America
has
has
stated
also
that
turned
he
never
dialed any telephone at America and he had

not talked with any Ravinder Sudan @ Titu.
166.
Counsel for the accused that there is not

even
an
iota
of
evidence
accused persons which can

with
the
commission
of
against
the
connect them
crime.
So
the
accused persons are, therefore, liable to

be acquitted.
167.

page no.85
Counsel for accused Vikas Yadav that there
is no force in the arguments advanced by
ld. Special PP that accused Vikas Yadav
had
absconded
immediately
commission
of
jurisdiction
of
offence
police.
after
the
from
the
PW
27
Pratap
Malik has stated that accused Vikas Yadav

is one of the Directors in the company
namely Yadu Overseas Limited which has got
its
registered
office
at
Delhi
and
its
place of business is also in Imphal and

other North East states.
Yadav
is
one
of
the
Accused Vikas
Director
of
the
company and he had gone to Manipur Imphal

in
connection
with
the
business
of
the
company. When he came to know about his

involvement in this case he applied for
anticipatory bail in the court of law at
Imphal
and
he
was
granted
anticipatory
bail by the said court. However on 26/5/99

the
Gauhati
High
Court
stayed
the
bail
order granted by the court at Imphal on

29/5/99. The accused Vikas Yadav came to
Delhi and he surrendered before the court
of MM New Delhi. Ld. Court of MM New Delhi
granted
him bail in
this case.
On an
application moved by the prosecution, the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cancelled the

page no.86
bail
granted to accused Vikas Yadav on
7/7/99.
On 7/7/99 itself accused Vikas
Yadav surrendered before

New
Delhi.
Thereafter
court of Ld. MM
a
Special
Leave
Petition was filed by the accused before

Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed
on 13/8/99.
However the Hon'ble Supreme
Court ordered him to apply for fresh bail

before Sessions Court. He approached the
Sessions Court and he was granted bail by
the
Sessions
Court
thereafter.
At
no
point of time the accused has absconded

from the jurisdiction of the police and
the
court.
Rather
he
had
applied
for
anticipatory bail before the court of law

when he came to know about his involvement
in
this
case
so
the
arguments
of
ld.
Special PP on this point is without any

basis.
168.
Yadav
Ld.
has
Counsel
further
for
accused
submitted
that
Vikas
PW20
Beena Ramani has deposed before the court

that
Gill,
she
thinks
Alok
accused
Khanna
and
Amardeep
Vikas
Yadav
Singh
were
also present along with accused Sidhartha

Vashisht
in
the
party
incident
at
the
time
on
of
the
night
of
commission
of
offence. But she is not sure about the

page no.87
presence
of
all
these
three
accused
persons. She has further deposed in the

cross examination that she had seen the
photographs
of
persons
the
in
all
the
three
newspaper
Television. Ld.
and
accused
in
the
Counsel for accused has
further submitted that
this incident took
place on the night of 29/4/99 while PW

Beena Ramani
identified
accused Vikas
Yadav for the first time on 15.10.01 i.e.

after
and
half
identification
by
PW20
years.
of
the
This
accused
persons in the court after 2 and a half

years is no identification in the eyes of
law as nobody can remember the identity of
a person after 2 and a half years
if one
had only a glimpse of those persons for a

very short period about 2 and a half years
back. Such an identification is bound to
be rejected.
169.
Yadav
Ld.
has
Counsel
further
for
accused
submitted
that
Vikas
PW30
Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar has made

lot of improvements in his statement made
before the court.
170.
Ld.
Counsel
attention towards
has
drawn
my
the statement of PW30

page no.88
Sharwan Kumar has deposed before the court
that he had told before the police that 34 vehicles were standing on one side of
the
road
Safari
while
was
portion
one
vehicle
standing
was
got
Black
Tata
separately.
confronted
This
with
statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein
his
it was
not so recorded.
171.
PW30
has
further
deposed
before the court that he had checked up

all
the
vehicles
and
locked,
This
portion
confronted
with
his
Cr.PC wherein
172.
the
they
were
was
found
also
got
u/s
161
statement
it was not so recorded.
PW30 has further deposed before

court
that
there
was
light
at
the
place where black Tata Safari was parked,

this portion was
statement
got confronted with
u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein
his
it was
not so recorded.
173.
the court that he had told the police that

he
had
police
joined
station,
confronted
Cr.PC
174.
with
the
SHO
this
his
at
the
gate
of
portion
was
got
statement
u/s
161
wherein it was not so recorded.

the court that he has told the police that

page no.89
he
was
instructed
should
remove
any
by
SHO
vehicle
that
from
nobody
there,
this portion was got confronted with his

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it was not
so recorded.
175.
PW 30 has further deposed before
the court that he had stated before the

police that SHO had left the spot leaving
him
at
the
confronted
spot,
with
Cr.PC wherein
176.
this
his
portion
statement
was
got
u/s
161
the court that he had stated before the

police that vehicle Tata Siera came slowly
and took a U-turn.
confronted
with
Cr.PC wherein
177.
his
This portion was got

statement
u/s
161

Tata
with
Safari
a
key,
confronted
Cr.PC
was
with
wherein
attempted
to
be
this
portion
his
statement
the
word
key
opened
was
got
u/s
161
was
not
recorded.
178.
the court that he had told
the police
that he had asked that person not to open

the black Tata Safari but he opened it

page no.90
forcibly
and
portion
was
entered
got
the
vehicle,this
confronted
with
his
it was
not so recorded.
179.

that
the
Yadav
photographs
and
other
of
the police
accused
accused
Vikas
persons
had
appeared in print media as well as visual

media.
with
This portion was
got confronted
his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

180.

that
he
does
officers
not
were
know
present
how
the police
many
police
inside
Qutub
Colonnade at that time, this portion was

got confronted with his statement u/s 161
Cr.PC wherein it was
181.
not so recorded.

at
the
time
of
removal
of
Black
Tata
Safari from the spot one Head Constable

was present there but he does not know the
name of that Head Constable nor does he
know
come,
from
which
this
with his
police
portion
was
station
got
he
had
confronted

page no.91
182.
the police
that he does not know if actually glass of

Black Tata Safari was broken or not. He
had not handed over the danda used by him
which
he
struck
on
the
window
pane
Black Tata Safari to the police.

danda
was
evidence
very
and
IO
important
should
have
of
This
piece
of
seized
the
same and sent it to CFSL to prove that

this danda was used in striking on the
window
pane
portion
of
was
Black
got
Tata
Safari,
confronted
this
with
his
statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it was not

so recorded.
183.

when he was appointed as a constable in
the
Delhi
police
appeared
in
any
admitted
that
he
no
advertisement
newspaper.
was
not
He
had
has
also
eligible
to
become a constable. He was under qualified

and
overage.
So
the
evidence
of
this
witness has been purchased by Delhi Police

in order to falsely implicate the accused
persons in this case.
184.
Ld.
Counsel
for
accused
Vikas

page no.92
Yadav has further submitted that TIP of
accused Vikas Yadav was not got conducted
by
the
guard
prosecution.
However
PW30
Home
Sharwan Kumar has submitted that on
24/5/99 he had picked up the photographs

of
accused
Gill and
shown
Vikas
Yadav,
Amardeep
Singh
Alok Khanna from the photographs
to
him
by
the
IO.
This
is
no
identification in the eyes of law.

185.
stated that PW90 C.K.Jain expert CFSL New

Delhi has been examined and he has deposed
before the court in his cross examination
that he had not received glass pieces for
conducting
Monogram
examination
S2
and
S1
of
are
the
of
the
same.
same
company. He has not examined the vehicle

from
where
recovered,
the
he
glass
cannot
pieces
say
have
from
been
which
vehicle the glass pieces have been taken.

So it has not been proved on record that
glass pieces are of the said Black Tata
Safari.
186.
submitted

that
no
chance
prints
were
lifted from Black Tata Safari by PW91 SI

BD Dubey.
PW91 has categorically stated
that he has not lifted any chance prints

page no.93
from
Black
Tata
Safari
seized
by
him
although he has admitted that he had come

to know that this vehicle was involved in
the murder of Jessica Lal.
Had he seized
the chance prints from Black Tata Safari

this
would
available
accused
have
with
been
the
persons
deliberately
best
police
in
did
the
this
not
evidence
to
fix
case
lift
the
but
the
they
chance
prints from the vehicle because they knew

that
this
accused
vehicle
persons
was
in
not
the
used
by
the
commission
of
offence.
187.
Counsel for accused Vikas Yadav
has further submitted that

has
examined
PW72
on
prosecution
the
point
of
absconsion of accused Vikas Yadav from his

house but PW72 Lal Singh who is Deputy
Manager
in
Sariska
categorically
stated
Palace
that
hotel
accused
has
Vikas
Yadav had never stayed in Sariska Palace

hotel on 9th and 10th May 1999.
PW77
before
Gajender
the
Singh
court
that
has
Similarly
also
Vikas
deposed
Yadav
had
never stayed in Sariska Palace Hotel. Both

these witnesses
have
not
prosecution.
have turned hostile and
supported
the
case
of
Similarly PW54 Varun Shah

page no.94
has also categorically stated that he was
working as a Manager at
Shakti Resort and
one Suresh Shekhar had visited the resort

on
10/5/99.
He
has
denied
that
accused
Vikas Yadav had stayed at Shakti resort on

the said day.
188.
submitted that PW81 Insp.SS Gill who is

part
IO
in
this
against the
stayed
at
case
has
only
deposed
accused Vikas Yadav that he

Shakti
Tourist
complex
on
10/5/99 but he was not able to collect any

cogent evidence
189.
in this regard.
submitted that PW100 SI Sunil Kumar has

deposed that he had not
near
the
Qutub
put any barricade
Colonnade
so
that
the
vehicle could be checked and stopped while

leaving
stated
Qutub
that
Colonnade.
accused
He
Vikas
has
also
Yadav
was
interrogated at PS Mehrauli and he had not

been taken to any interrogation center at
Anti
terrorist
whereas PW101
center
at
Lodhi
Colony
Surender Kumar Sharma has
stated that accused Vikas Yadav was taken

to interrogation center at Lodhi Colony.
This is a very serious contradiction which
has
come
on
record
with
regard
to
the

page no.95
place
of
interrogation
of
the
accused
Vikas Yadav.
190.
Ld.
Counsel
further
submitted
for
accused
that
PW101
has
Insp.
Surender Kumar Sharma IO has not seized

the lathi which was used by PW30 Delhi
Home Guard, Sharwan Kumar with which he
had broken the window pane of Black Tata
Safari.
191.
Ld.
further
Counsel
submitted
for
that
accused
PW101
has
Surender
Kumar Sharma claims that he had sent a

message
been
about
taken
Black
away
by
Tata
two
Safari
persons
having
to
PCR
through Duty officer but no such message

has been sent to the PCR as is apparent
from the
evidence.
192.
Ld
further
counsel
submitted
for
that
accused
PW101
has
has
not
collected any record regarding flashing of

message of Black Tata Safari having been
taken away by two persons. However, PW101
has
stated
that
message
was
flashed
about Black Tata Safari only giving the

registration number in the said DD entry
vide Entry no.101/DK1 but this entry has

page no.96
not been proved by any person in whose
handwriting
which
the
entry
was
made
and
in
DD register it was made.
193.
Ld
counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that PW101 has admitted

that he did not record statement of any
witness
to
the
brought
Black
effect
Tata
as
Safari
to
to
who
the
had
Qutub
Colonnade. So it has not been proved on

record that
accused persons had brought
Black Tata Safari at Qutub Colonnade

194.
further
Ld
counsel
submitted
for
that
accused
PW13
ASI
has
Kartar
Singh from PS Mehrauli has been examined

and he has categorically stated that there
is no reference of breaking of side glass
of Black Tata Safari from 2.25am to 8am
in any of the DD entries as per record. He
had also stated that there is no DD entry
regarding removal of Black Tata Safari in
any Daily diary register upto
8am. There
is no reference of any Sardarjee or any

mona admi removing the Tata Safari in the
Daily diary register. So all these facts
regarding presence of Black Tata Safari,
regarding
breaking
regarding
removal
of
of
window
Black
pane
Tata
and
Safari

page no.97
have been introduced by the IO in order to
falsely implicate the accused persons in
this case.
195.
Ld
Chopra has
IPC
for
providing
counsel
for
accused
Raja
submitted that charge u/s 212
harbouring
the
the
vehicle
persons was framed
accused
to
the
and
for
accused
against this accused
but all the three witnesses examined by

the police namely PW 52 Chander Prakash,
PW69 Rakesh Atri and PW71 Harminder Singh
have turned hostile and have not supported
the case of the prosecution. So the charge
against accused Raja Chopra does not stand
proved by the prosecution.
PW71 Harminder
Singh has categorically stated that he was

working at Petrol pump and no vehicle had
come to take petrol on the relevant day
nor any vehicle had broken down at the
petrol
the
pump.
accused
Raja
So the charge against

Chopra
has
not
been
proved by the prosecution.

196.
Ld. counsel for accused Amardeep
Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna has

submitted
Manager
that
at
they
Cocacola
were
working
factory
at
as
the
relevant time. The only witness who could

page no.98
have deposed anything against accused Alok
Khanna was PW Dinesh Kumar but he was not
produced by the prosecution in the court
so the charge framed against Alok Khanna
has
not
been
proved
on
record
by
the
prosecution.
197.
Ld
counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that accused Alok Khanna

and accused
Sidhartha Vashisht were not
even known to each other prior to the date

of occurrence.
this
case
He has been implicated in
only
because
he
was
working
along with accused Amardeep Singh Gill as

Manager at Coca Cola company.
198.
Ld
counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that PW1 Deepak Bhojwani

has
stated
in
his
examination
in
chief
before the court that accused Alok Khanna

had
accompanied accused Tony Gill at the
place
of
examination
occurrence.
he
states
In
that
his
he
cross
does
not
remember if he had told the police that he

would be able to identify the person who
had
This
accompanied
portion
confronted
of
with
Cr.PC wherein
Tony
the
his
Gill
at
the
spot.
statement
was
got
statement
u/s
161
So
PW1 has made statement in the court by

page no.99
saying
for
the
first
time
that
accused
Alok Khanna was accompanying accused Tony

Gill at the relevant time. This statement
has no value in the eyes of law and this
statement is bound to be rejected.
199.
Ld
counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that car Tata Siera used

by the accused persons for going to the
spot
has
not
been
connected
with
the
accused Alok Khanna as no car number of

Tata
Sierra
has
been
given
by
any
witness. So this evidence of prosecution

that he had provided Tata Sierra car to
the accused persons Vikas Yadav and Tony
Gill for going to the spot also does not
stand proved.
200.
further
Ld.
counsel
submitted
for
that
accused
even
if
it
has
is
presumed for the sake of arguments that

accused
Alok
Khanna
was
present
in
the
party still he is not connected with the

commission
of
crime
as
no
overtact
shown to have been performed by
is
accused
Alok Khanna in the commission of offence

nor any charge has been framed in this
regard against the accused.
201.
Ld.
counsel
for
accused
has

page no.100
further
submitted
accused
Alok
accused
had
jurisdiction
that
Khanna
not
of
conduct
also
run
shows
away
police.
of
the
that
from
When
the
police
visited his house he was available at his

house. It also proves that accused is not
involved
in
the
commission
of
crime
at
all.
202.
Ld.
counsel
for
accused
has
even otherwise the
witnesses examined by the prosecution are

highly interested witnesses.
203.
PW1 Deepak Bhojwani is a highly
interested witness as he has stated before

the court that Jessica Lal was friendly
with him for 5-6 years and he went to the
house of Jessica Lal on 30/4/99 and on
1/5/99 to pay his condolences.
been
introduced
prosecution
as
because
witness
his
name
He has
by
the
does
not
figure in the FIR Ex.Pw2/A His name is

also not mentioned in the list of guests
ExPW24/A given by George Mailhott.
This
list contained the names of those persons

who had attended the Thursday party on the
night of occurrence. Nor his name has been
mentioned in the MLC of deceased Jessica
Lal.
This witness claims that he was very

page no.101
close to Jessica Lal then he should have
lifted the injured to the car for taking
her
to
the
hospital
which
should
have
proved that he was present at the spot at

the time of occurrence.
PW Beena Ramani,
Malini Ramani and George Mailhott who were

known to this witness have nowhere
in
their
present
statements
at
the
that
party
PW1
stated
although
was
he
also
was
known to them.
204.
Ld.
counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that PW20 Beena Ramani

is also a highly interested witness. She
has made substantial improvements in her
statement made by her in the court over
the
statement
made
by
her
before
the
police. She has deposed that Jessica Lal

was friend of her daughter Malini Ramani
and used to help her daughter at the party
organised
Jessica
at
Lal
Qutub
was
Colonnade
helping
her
and
that
daughter
Malini Ramani on that night in the party.

205.
Ld
counsel
for
accused
has
further submitted that PW George Mailhott

has
stated
Sardarjee
who
that
came
he
cannot
along
with
identify
accused
persons at Qutub Colonnade because he had

page no.102
seen him only for a short duration.
if
Amardeep
were
Singh
Gill
and
Alok
Even
Khanna
present at the spot at Tamarind Cafe
on the night of occurrence but there is no

allegation that they had entered into a
conspiracy to murder Jessica Lal nor any
such charge has been framed against them.
Their presence simplicitor
at the spot is
of no help to the prosecution. Nor does it

prove
that
they
are
involved
in
the
accused
has
commission of crime in any manner.

206.
Ld.
counsel
further
submitted
for
that
PW1
has
made
substantial improvement in the statement

made
by
him
in
the
court
over
the
statement made by him before the police.

In the court he has stated that one tall
Sikh gentleman
him
something.
behind Mannu Sharma told

This
portion
was
got
confronted with his statement recorded u/s

161 Cr.PC wherein it was not so recorded
by the police.
He has further deposed
that he can identify 2-3 friends of Mannu

Sharma
with
Sharma
had
statement
whom
Tony
Gill
gone,
this
portion
was
got
confronted
and
Mannu
of
the
with
his
statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

it was not so recorded by the police. He

page no.103
has
further
deposed
that
he
does
not
remember if he had told the police that he

will be able to identify those persons who
were
accompanying
portion
was
Mannu
got
Sharma.
confronted
This
with
his

it was not so recorded by the police. PW1
has made substantial improvements in his
statement made before the court and there
are
very
serious
contradictions
before
the
in
his
court.
omissions
and
statement
made
Statement
of
this
witness may be rejected outright.

207.
Ld.
Counsel
for

Guard
Sharwan
Kumar
interested witness.
accused
has
PW30 Delhi Home

is
also
highly
His statement has to
be read with great caution. He has deposed

before
the
court
that
one
Sardar
was
driving Tata Sierra but he has not given

any
description
sardar.
or
features
of
that
There was no light inside the
car. It is only when there is light inside

the car that someone from outside can see
the driver of the car at 3am in the night
when the car entered the Qutub Colonnade.
Which means that PW30 had not seen the
inmates of the car and it was impossible

page no.104
to identify the driver of the car who was
sitting inside the car. So PW30 Delhi Home
Guard Sharwan
Kumar being an interested
witness has identified that Sikh Gentleman

Tony Gill at the instance of IO as there
was no occasion for him to see the driver
of the vehicle who was sitting inside the
car.
208.
submitted
that
PW30
Delhi
Home
Guard
Sharwan Kumar has deposed before the court

that he had given the description of Vikas
Yadav
and
Amardeep
Singh
Gill
in
his
statement before the police. This portion

was got confronted with his statement u/s
161 Cr.PC wherein it was not so mentioned
there.
209.
Counsel
further
submitted
for
that
PW30
accused
has
Delhi
Home
Guard Sharwan Kumar has stated before the

court that he cannot tell the number of
other vehicles which were parked there. He
does not remember if he had told the IO
that 3-4 vehicle were standing on one side
and one Black Tata Safari was standing on
the
other
confronted
side,
with
this
his
portion
was
got
statement
u/s
161

page no.105
Cr.PC
wherein
it
does
not
find
mention
there.
210.
submitted
that
PW30
Delhi
Home
Guard
Sharwan Kumar has stated before the court

that there was light at the place where
vehicle was parked, this portion was got
confronted
with
Cr.PC wherein
his
statement
u/s
161
it was not so mentioned
there.
211.
submitted that
no light or light pole has
been shown in the site plan Ex.PW21/A or

in the rough site plan Ex.PW 100/2 which
further shows that there was no light at
the place where car was parked and this
witness has tried to make improvements
in
his statement.
212.
submitted

that
PW30
Delhi
Home
Guard

that he was told by the SHO to remain at
the spot when the SHO left the spot, this
portion
was
got
confronted
with
his
it was
not so mentioned there.

213.
submitted

that
PW30
Delhi
Home
Guard

page no.106
Sharwan Kumar has further deposed before
the court that Tata Sierra took a U turn
and then came near him, this portion was
got confronted with his statement u/s 161
Cr.PC wherein
it was not so mentioned
there.
214.
submitted
that
PW30
Delhi
Home
Guard

that Black Tata Safari was attempted to be
opened
with
confronted
Cr.PC
key,
with
where
his
the
this
portion
statement
word
key
u/s
was
was
161
not
mentioned there.
215.
submitted
that
PW30
Delhi
Home
Guard

that he has started his duty on the side
of Black Tata Safari, this portion was got
confronted
Cr.PC
with
wherein
his
it
was
statement
not
so
u/s
161
mentioned
there.
216.
submitted
that
PW30
Delhi
Home
Guard

that
he had checked all the cars which
were parked there and all the cars were

page no.107
locked,
this portion was confronted with
his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC where it was

not so mentioned there.
217.
submitted that it shows that PW30 Delhi

Home
Guard
Sharwan
Kumar
has
made
substantial improvements in his statement

when he deposed before the court and all
these improvements were not mentioned in
his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC which shows
that he is totally a false witness and he
has made
statement in the court at the
instance
of
IO
in
order
to
falsely
implicate the accused persons.
218.
submitted that Smt. Beena Ramani PW20 and

PW24
George
Mailhot
were
booked
by
the
police in the Excise Act. An application

was moved by
two accused persons in the
court
seeking
of
MM
permission
to
go
abroad. In reply to the application filed

by
the
prosecution
on
16/8/99
the
prosecution alleged that additional charge

sheet
has
to
be
filed
against
these
accused persons as they are also guilty of

the offences of destroying the evidence of

page no.108
this case and they should not be allowed
to go abroad. It was further alleged that
they
have
removed
the
blood
of
the
deceased from the spot which amounts to

destruction of evidence. Ld. MM passed the
order
dated
29/10/99
dismissing
the
application of these two accused persons

Beena Ramani and George Mailhot for going
abroad.
order
The ld. MM also observed in the
that
required
the
for
accused
persons
filing
an
chargesheet against
may
be
additional
them in the present
murder case.
219.
submitted that it appears that a deal was

struck between the prosecution and police
on one side and accused Beena Ramani and
George Mailhot on the other side and it
was agreed by these two persons that they
will make statement in the court in their
favour and that the police will not file
additional charge sheet against them and
consequent
upon
this
agreement
these
witnesses made a false statement in the

court against accused persons as a result
of which
additional chargesheet was not
filed by the police against them.

page no.109
220.
submitted
that
deal
was
also
struck
between the prosecution and the police on

one side and PW30 Delhi home guard Sharwan
Kumar on the other side and he was asked
to make a false statement in the court and
in response to the same he was rewarded by
the police. He got
as
he
was
a very handsome reward
promoted
to
the
post
of
Constable although he was neither eligible

nor competent to become a constable. He
was under matric and overage still he was
made constable out of turn
as a reward
for giving false evidence against accused

persons in this case.
221.
Counsel
submitted
that
examined
accused
for
accused
R.K.Khanna,
Alok
accused
Khanna
has
Alok
who
as
further
Khanna
is
father
DW1,
who
has
of
has
deposed before the court that on 4/5/99 at

about 7.30pm the police had come to his
house
and
inquired
about
his
son
Alok
Khanna.
He told the police that he had
gone
office.
to
The
police
photographs of Alok Khanna and

from
their
album.
After
took
away
Tony Gill
sometime
Alok
Khanna came, he was also taken away by the

page no.110
police with them with the assurance that
they will make some inquiries and then he
will
be
witness
let
off.
finds
evidence of
The
evidence
corroboration
of
this
from
the
witness PW6 Malini Ramani
who has stated that during the first five

days of the investigation photographs of
the
culprits
were
shown
to
her
by
the
police at the police station.

222.
submitted that accused Tony Gill and Alok

Khanna have rightly refused to participate
in the TIP as they were shown to the PWs
and their photographs were also shown to
the
witnesses
in
the
police
station.
PW30 Delhi Home guard Sharwan Kumar has

admitted
before
the
court
that
after
arrest of the accused persons they were

detained
in
the
lockup
The other witnesses have
of
PS
Mehrauli.
also supported
this version of PW30. In the lockup they

were shown to all the witnesses.
223.
submitted that LD. MM passed an order on

5/5/99 wherein
it is mentioned as under:-
'' Both the accused in police

custody.
Case file perused.

page no.111
Accused are remanded to
JC in view of the TIP
to be conducted against
them.''
This order does not reflect
that
accused
faces.
were
produced
in
muffled
There is no mention of the same in
the remand order dated 5/5/99.

224.
PW 79 Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
MM has deposed before the court that as

per the endorsement Ex.PW79/A it is not
reflected in the order that accused Alok
Khanna
and
Amardeep
Singh
Gill
are
produced in muffled face or not.

225.
submitted that PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar

Sharma has deposed before the court that
he had not recorded in the arrest memo and
Jamatalashi memo
of accused Alok Khanna
and Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill that

they should keep their faces muffled
vide
arrest
memo
memo
and
Jamatalashi
Ex.PW100/8 and 100/9 of Alok Khanna and

Ex.PW 100/5 and 100/26 of Amardeep Singh
Gill respectively.
226.
submitted that an application was moved by

the
counsel
Ex.PW101/X
for
accused
stating
on
6/5/99
therein
that

page no.112
photographs of
the accused persons have
been taken away by the police from their

house on 5/5/99.
also
admitted
accused
that
persons
photographs
involved
in
of
the
this
case
appeared in the newspaper within 1 week of

the incident. PW6 Malini Ramani has also
admitted that during the first 5 days of
her
interrogation
photographs
of
the
she
was
culprits.
shown
PW30
has
admitted in the cross examination that the

photograph of all the accused persons have
appeared
in
print
media
as
well
as
in
visual media.
227.
submitted that the police has filed record

of the mobile phones of accused Amardip
Singh Gill and Alok Khanna. Although these
mobile phones belong to accused Amardeep
Singh Gill and Alok Khanna but it does not
mean that these mobile phones cannot be
used by other persons nor does it prove
that these mobile phones were only used by
these
accused
transpired
on
conversation
persons.
mobile
took
What
phones
place
actually
and
what
between
the

page no.113
accused persons has not been filed by the
police on record.
228.
Ld.
Sunder
Sharma
prosecution
Counsel
for
has
has
accused
Shyam
submitted
examined
five
that
witnesses
namely PW56 Chetan Nanda, PW57 Ashok Dutt,

PW60 Baldev Singh, PW61 Ishdeep and PW68
Mangal
Singh
regard
to
who
were
involvement
witnesses
of
with
accused
Sunder Sharma in this case.
Shyam
All these
witnesses have turned hostile and have not

uttered a single word against Shyam Sunder
Sharma
of
implicating him
crime.
Therefore,
in the commission
case
against
the
accused Shyam Sunder Sharma for destroying

the
evidence
accused
does
and
not
for
stand
harbouring
proved.
the
He
is
therefore, liable to be acquitted.

submitted that all the witnesses who have
been produced by the prosecution against
accused
Harwinder
Yograj
Singh,
Chopra
turned hostile.
and
Raja
Vikas
Chopra
Gill,
have
Witnesses PW52 Chander
Prakash Chabra, PW 64 Ravinder Singh Gill,

PW65 Kulwinder
Singh, PW69 Rakesh Kumar
Atri and PW71 Harminder Singh have turned

page no.114
hostile and have not uttered even a single
word against the accused implicating them
in
the
commission
of
crime.
All
the
remaining witnesses also examined on the

point of harbouring of accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
hostile.
have also turned
There is not even an iota of
evidence to implicate these accused with

Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied

upon the following judgments:(i)
1987(1) Crimes page 198 Orissa In Re
Subas @ Sabakhia Bhoi and others Vs. State.
''The
third circumstance
relied
upon
by
the
prosecution is the fact that
appellants
Subas
and
Dukhishyam
were
not
available in their houses
until their arrest on 2.2.1983
and appellant Udia Bhoi
could not be traced until
27/4/83. The fact that the
appellants were not present
for some time after the
occurrence in their respective
houses cannot by itself lead
to the irresistible conclusion
that they had absconded
with a view to shield
themselves from the arms of
law.
Without proof of
anything more such conduct
is quite compatible with
innocence as well.''

page no.115
(ii)
II (1997) CCR 191 Bombay High Court in
Re State of Maharashtra Vs. Harishchandra
Tukaram Awatade wherein it has been held as
under :''(v)Evidence Act, 1872 Section 3-Hostile witnessLaw-Testimony of hostile
witness - Not to be rejected
altogether - Extent to
which
corroborated
by
reliable
witness
Acceptable.''
(iii) 2001 Crl.LJ 487, SC in Re Gura Singh Vs.
State of Rajasthan wherein it has been held as
under :(A) Evidence Act (1 of
1872) S.154 - Hostile
witness - Testimony ofNot
to
be
excluded
entirely
or
rendered
unworthy
of
consideration.''
(iv) AIR 2005 SC 2804 In Re Mukhtiar Ahmed
Ansari Vs. State of Delhi, wherein it has been
held as under:'' (D) Evidence Act (1 of
1872),
S.154-Hostile
witness
Prosecution
witness
not
supporting
genesis
of
prosecutionAccused can rely on his
evidence''.
(V) AIR 1933 Patna 496 in Re Emperor Vs.
Ardali Mian and others wherein it has been held
as under:(a)
Criminal
TrialIdentification of accused
should
be
beyond
reasonable
doubtThe

page no.116
evidence as to identification
of
accused
must
be
sufficient to exclude with
reasonable certainty the
possibility of mistake.''
(vi)
AIR 1995 SC 2128, Andhra Pradesh
in Re A. Jayaram and Another Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held as
under:'' ....Conviction cannot be based
on circumstances indicating
that the prosecution case is
quite likely to be true. For
basing the conviction in a case
governed by circumstantial
evidence, the facts established
must rule out any likelihood of
innocence of the accused.''
(vii) AIR 1972 SC 110 In Re Rahman Vs. State
of UP, wherein it has been held as under:(A) Evidence Act (1872), S.3Circumstantial evidence- The
circumstances
forming
evidence must be conclusively
established and even when so
established, they must form
such a complete chain that it
is not only consistent with the
guilt but is inconsistent with
any reasonable hypothesis of
innocence.
(B) Evidence Act(1872), S.8Subsequent conduct of accused
- Absconding by itself is not
conclusive either of guilt or of
guilty conscience.''.
(viii)
2002 (2) JCC SC 1304 in Re Toran
Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it

page no.117
has been held as under:''... Sole eye witness did not try to
save his father and ran to his village
without raising any hue and cry Delay in lodging complaint Whether trial Court and High Court
rightly convicted the appellant Held (No) - Held : that son of
deceased is an interested witness
and his evidence ought to have been
scrutinized with greater care and
caution - Held : that conduct of
only eye witness is highly unnatural
and improbable - Held : that very
presence of eye witness at the place
and time of occurrence itself
doubtful and incredible - Appellant
acquittal.''
(ix) 41(1990) DLT (SN) 32 Delhi in Re Rajinder
Parshad & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Admn wherein it
has been held as under :'' Where the behaviour of the
witness is not in keeping with the
normal
human
conduct,
his
testimony as eye witness would be
doubtful.''
(x)
AIR 2004 SC 4660 in Re State of
Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh wherein it has
been held as under:(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974),
Ss.378, 386, 154 - Penal Code
(45 of 1860) Ss.300 Appeal
against acquittal - Veracity of
prosecution case - Presence of
prosecution witness at place of
occurrence
doubtful
Unexplained delay of one day in
lodging FIR - Medical evidence
totally at variance with ocular

page no.118
evidence - All these factors effect
credibility of prosecution case Acquittal, proper.
(xi)
AIR
1979
Maharashtra
Vs.
SC
1410
Annappa
in
Re
Bandu
State
of
Kavatage
wherein it has been held as under:''Before a court can act on

circumstantial
evidence
the
circumstances proved must be
complete and of a conclusive
nature
so
as
to be
fully
inconsistent with the innocence of
the
accused
and
are
not
explainable
on
any
other
hypothesis except the guilt of the
accused.''
(xi) AIR 1975 Crl. L.J. 870 SUPREME COURT
1026 In Re Ram Kumar Pande Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh wherein it has been held as
under :'' No doubt, an FIR is a previous
statement which can, strictly
speaking,
be
only
used
to
corroborate or contradict the
maker of it.
But omissions of
important facts, affecting the
probabilities of the facts, affecting
the probabilities of the case, are
relevant under Section 11 of the
Evidence Act in judging the
veracity of the prosecution case.''
(xii) 2002(4) RCR (Crl.) SC 95 in Re Balu Sonba
Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra wherein it
has been held as under:''B. evidence Act, Section 154...
Criminal Trial... Hostile witness...
Declaration of a witness to be
hostile does not ipso facto reject the

page no.119
evidence... Portion of evidence being
advantageous to the parties may be
taken advantage of... But the Court
before whom such a reliance is
placed shall have to be extremely
cautious and circumspect in such
acceptance.
C. Indian Penal Code, Section 302...
Murder...
Case
based
on
circumstantial evidence... Accused
is entitled to benefit of doubt if
chain is snapped.
D. Indian Penal Code, Section
302... circumstantial evidence...
Law summed up :1. There must be a chain of
evidence so far complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground
for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such
as to show that within all
human probability the act
must have been done by the
accused.
2. Circumstantial evidence can be
reasonably made the basis of
an accused person's conviction
if it is of such a character that
it it wholly inconsistent with
the innocence of the accused
and is consistent only with his
guilt.
3. There should be no missing
links but it is not that every
one of the links must appear
on the surface of the evidence,
since some of these links may
only be inferred from the
proven facts.

page no.120
4. On the availability of two

inferences, the one in favour of
the accused must be accepted.''
(xiii) AIR 1981 Cr.LJ SC 1014 in Re
Wakil
Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar wherein it
has been held as under:'' Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.
396... Dacoity with murder...
Appreciation of evidence... None
of
witnesses
gave
any
description of dacoits in their
statements or in oral evidence
nor gave any identification
marks, such as stature of
accused or whether they were
fat or thin or of fair colour or
black colour ... Only one witness
identified dacoits after certain
days from T.I. Parade ...
Conviction cannot be based only
on
identification by
single
witness. (Evidence Act (1872),
Ss.3, 134 and S.9). 1977 Cri.LJ
NOC 80(Pat), Reversed.''
(xiv) AIR 1991 SC 1468 in Re Bollavaram Pedda

Narsi Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh wherein it has been held as under:'' Penal Code (1860), S.300...
Murder...
Appreciation
of
evidence... Witnesses, strangers to
accused... No natural light was
available and street light was at a
distance from place of occurrence...
No cogent evidence that witnesses
had clear vision of action of
accused persons in order that their

page no.121
features could get impressed in
their mind to enable them to
recollect the same and identify
accused even after lapse of long
time... Identification parade not
conducted properly... Testimony of
witnesses not acceptable... Identity
and involvement of accused not
established
beyond
reasonable
doubt...
Accused
entitled
to
acquittal.''
(xv)
1998 Cri.LJ 4059 SC in Re Ravindra alias
Ravi Bansi Gohar Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others wherein it has been held as under:''(B)
Penal Code (45 of 1860),
S.300... Murder... Proof... eye
witness who was Police constable
not
disclosing
details
about
accused in his statement before
police as to fix up identity of
accused...
Witness
also
not
asserting that person whom he
named in FIR was accused before
Court...
Police
showing
photographs of accused to witness
before identification parade... Fact
that witness was attached to police
station where the accused was in
lock-up for some time prior to
incident in question... Would not
establish probability of witnesses
knowing
accused
persons...
Conviction of accused on basis of
sole
identification
of
such
witnesses... Not sustainable.''
(xvi) 2000 Cri.LJ 698 HP in Re Sukesh Kumar

page no.122
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein it has
been held as under:'' Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.9...
Punjab Police Rules (1938), Vol.3,
Chap.26, R.26, 32... Offence of
rape... Test identification parade
not conducted in terms of rules...
Outcome of such parade becomes
unreliable piece of evidence.
Where the order passed by the
Magistrate makes it clear that the
Magistrate did not ask the accused
as to whether his face was kept
muffled from the time of his arrest
till the production before the
Magistrate, and that the order of
the Magistrate does not contain
anything to show that when the
accused was produced before him,
his
face
was
muffled,
the
Magistrate while remanding the
accused to the judicial custody can
be said to have committed two
irregularities leaving room to
suspect the very foundation of the
test
identification
parade
in
question.''
(xvii)
AIR 1996 SC 607 in Re Balwinder Singh
Vs. State of Punjab wherein it has been held as

under:''4.
In
a
case
based
on
circumstantial evidence, it is now
well settled that the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully
proved and those circumstances

page no.123
must be conclusive in nature to
connect the accused with the
crime. All the links in the chain of
events must be established beyond
a reasonable doubt and the
established circumstances should
be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and totally inconsistent
with his innocence.
In a case
based on circumstantial evidence
the Court has to be on its guard to
avoid the danger of allowing
suspicion to take the place of legal
proof and has to be watchful to
avoid the danger of being swayed
by
emotional
considerations,
however, strong they may be, to
take the place of proof. It is in the
context of the above settled
principles, that we shall analyse
the
evidence
led
by
the
prosecution.''
(xviii)
AIR 1976 SC 975 in Re Bhagirath Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it has been

held as under:'' The prosecution can succeed by
substantially proving the very story
it alleges. It must stand on its own
legs. It cannot take advantage of
the weakness of the defence. Nor
can the court, on its own, make
out a new case for the prosecution
and convict the accused on that
basis.''
(xix)
AIR 1953 Calcutta 160
in Re Tulsiram
Shaw Vs. R.C. Pal Ltd. Wherein it has been held

as under:-

page no.124
'' (a) Evidence Act (1872), S.154...

Hostile
witness...
Testimony
against party calling him ...
Witness is not necessarily hostile
on this ground alone... Section
does not say anything regarding
declaring witness hostile.
A witness is not necessarily hostile
if in speaking the truth as he
knows and sees it, his testimony
happens to go against the party
calling him.
There is no
proposition in the law of evidence
that a witness who is not partial or
partisan in favour of the party
calling him is on that ground alone
to be treated as hostile. The court
always aspires to find if the
witness desires to tell the truth.
That aspiration is the yardstick
which measures the appreciation
of the evidence of a witness. It is
with that object that the Court is
given the discretion to permit the
person who calls a witness to put
any question to the witness which
might be put to him in crossexamination... But that is far from
saying that a witness is hostile
whether his testimony is such that
it does not support the case of the
party calling him. Such a view
would seriously undermine the
independence, integrity and dignity
of a witness in a court of law. AIR
1922 PC 409, Ref.Anno:Evid.Act,
S.154 N.1, 3.''
(xx) AIR 1970 MYSORE 157 (V 57 C 38)
in Re
Saraswathamma and another Vs. Bhadramma

and another wherein it has been held as under:-

page no.125
''(A) Evidence Act (1872), S. 154...

Fact that witness has become
hostile... Fact to be established by
eliciting
information
giving
indication of hostility.
A witness cannot be treatment as
hostile
merely
because
his
evidence is favourable to the other
side, and the fact that the witness
has become hostile has to be
established by eliciting information
such as could give an indication of
hostility.''
(xxi) 1978 CLR (SC) 75 in Re State of Haryana
Vs. Jagbir Singh etc. wherein it has been held as
under:'' (C)
Criminal Trial ... Case
involving murder charge depending
wholly
upon
circumstantial
evidence...
Circumstances
appearing
from
prosecution
evidence,
however,
showing
existence
of
''padding''
in
prosecution case and
certain
evidence having been fabricated to
implicate the accused... Accused
held entitled to acquittal on that
score.''
(xxii)
AIR 1929 Lahore 344 FB in Re Sukhan
Vs. Emperor wherein it has been held as under:'' (a) Evidence Act, S.27... Only that
portion of information which is
immediate and proximate cause of
discovery of fact can be proved

page no.126
(c ) Evidence Act, S.27... Fact
discovered refers to material fact
and not mental fact.
The expression ''fact'' as defined in
S.3 includes not only the physical
fact but also the psychological fact
or mental condition of which any
person is conscious. It is in the
former sense that the word is used
in S.27.''
(xxiii)
AIR 1972 (SC) 975 in Re Himachal
Pradesh Administration Vs. Om Prakash wherein

it has been held as under :''(B) Evidence... Appreciation of...
Criminal
case...
That
the
evidence is legally admissible
must be ensured by Court.
In appreciating the evidence
against the accused the prime
duty of a court is firstly to
ensure that the evidence is
legally admissible, that the
witnesses who speak to it are
credible and have no interest in
implicating him or have ulterior
motive.
(F) Evidence Act, Section 8...
Fact
showing
conduct
of
accused... Admissibility
(E) A fact discovered within the
meaning of Section 27 must refer
to a material fact to which the
information
directly
relates.
That information which does not
distinctly connect with the fact
discovered or that portion of the

page no.127
information
which
merely
explains the material thing
discovered is not admissible
under Section 27 and cannot be
proved.''
228.
I have heard ld. Special PP for
the state, counsels for all the accused

persons and perused the record carefully.
229.
The
prosecution
has
examined
three eye witnesses in this case namely

PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and PW4
Karan
Rajput.
All
these
three
eye
witnesses appeared in the court but they

did not point an accusing finger
against

or
any
murder
other
of
accused
Jessica
witnesses
have
that accused
having
Lal.
stated
None
before
committed
of
these
the
court
Sidhartha Vashisht fired a
shot from his pistol at Jessica Lal.

three of
All
them have categorically stated
that they did not see accused Sidhartha

Vashisht
firing
deceased.
All
declared
Prosecutor.
stated
the
the
shot
three
hostile
by
at
Jessica
witnesses
ld.
Lal
were
Special
However, PW2 Shyan Munshi has

story
of
the
prosecution
in

page no.128
detail. He has stated that two shots were
fired by two persons from two pistols. One
shot was fired by one person on the roof
of the restaurant while the other shot was
fired by another person at Jessica Lal as
a result of which she received injuries
which resulted into her death. Ld. Special
PP has categorically admitted that all the
three eye witnesses
of the prosecution
are hostile and they have not supported

the
case
of
the
prosecution
at
all.
However I agree with the contention of ld.

Special PP that accused Sidhartha Vashisht
was holder of licence of pistol of .22
bore
and
the
licence
of
the
pistol
is
Ex.PW7/B. It is also proved on record by

the prosecution that Haryana Gun House had
sold 25 rounds of
cartridges to accused
Sidhartha Vashisht on 4/2/99 by PW7 Naveen

Chopra.
The
categorically
ld.
Special
admitted
that
PP
the
has
pistol
used in the commission of crime has not

been
recovered
from
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht or from any other accused person

in this case.
230.
contention
vehicle
of
Tata
also
ld.
agree
Safari
Special
with
PP
the
that
the
no.CH-01-W-6535
was

page no.129
registered in the name of M/s Picaddily
Agro Industries Private Limited Sector 34
Chandigarh, It is also proved on record
that accused Sidhartha Vashisht was one of
the director
in Picadilly Agro Industry
Limited in the year 1999 but it has not

been proved on record by any witness that
the accused
Sidhartha Vashisht had been
using this vehicle in the year 1999 nor it

has been proved on record by any cogent
evidence that accused Sidhartha Vashisht
had
used
this
vehicle
on
the
day
of
occurrence and had taken this vehicle to

Qutub Colonnade on the date of occurrence.
231.
I also agree with the contention
of ld. Special PP that accused Amardeep

Singh Gill and Alok Khanna were working in
Hindustan Cocacola Company at the relevant
time and they were alloted Tata Siera car
each by the company for use.
It has also
been
Tata
proved
on
record
that
Siera
number HR-26-H-4348 was alloted to accused

Amardeep
Singh
Gill
by
the
Cocacola
Company at the relevant time.
232.
of ld. Special PP that accused Amardeep

Singh
Gill
was
having
mobile
phone

page no.130
no.9811100237
was
having
These
while
accused
mobile
mobile
phone
phones
Alok
Khanna
no.9811068169.
were
given
by
Hindustan Cocacola company to them at the

relevant time.
233.
also
agree
with
the
submissions made by ld. Special PP that

telephone number 3782072 was installed at
BR Mehta lane where D.P Yadav father of
accused Vikas Yadav had been residing.
234.
also
agree
with
the

telephone no.4765152-53 installed at Sugar
mill
owned
by
M/s
Picadilly
Agro
Industries Limited and Sidhartha Vashisht

@ Mannu Sharma, Shyam Sunder Sharma and
Harvinder Chopra were the Directors in the
said company at the relevant time.
235.
made
I also agree with the submissions

by
ld.
Special
PP
that
Ms.
Beena
Ramani was the owner of restaurant ''Once

upon a time'' and she was running a cafe
named
Tamarind
Court
Cafe
at
Qutub
Colonnade at the relevant time in the year

1999.
236.
also
agree
with
the
submissions made by ld. Special PP that on

29/4/99 i.e. on the date of occurrence a

page no.131
private party was going on at the said
restaurant
Tamarind
Cafe,
this
was
Thursday party and this party used to be

held on every Thursday of the week and
liquor
was
being
served
at
the
said
restaurant in that party. It had also come

in the evidence of PW29 Shahana
Mukherjee
that on the date of occurrence Jessica Lal

was
wearing
blue
denim
short
and
half
with
the
sleeve white shirt.

237.
also
agree

accused Sidhartha Vashisht alongwith coaccused
Gill,
persons
Alok
namely
Khanna
and
Amardeep
Vikas
Singh
Yadav
were
also present in the said party at Tamarind

cafe on the night of occurrence.
It has
also been pointed out that someone fired a

shot at Jessica Lal as a result of which
she received injury on her head.
She was
removed to the Ashlok hospital and from

there she was removed to Apollo hospital
where she was declared brought dead by the
Doctor at 4.37am as per the statement of
PW99 Deepak Vats.
238.
It
has
also
been
proved
on
record that
Jessica Lal was transferred
from
hospital
Apollo
to
AIIMS
hospital

page no.132
where
post mortem was conducted on her
body by PW9 Dr. R.K.Sharma who has given

cause of death as head injury caused by
fire arm.
239.
It
has
also
been
proved
on
record that injury no.3 was sufficient to

cause
death
in
the
ordinary
also
agree
course
of
nature.
240.
with
the

PW20 Beena Ramani has deposed before the
court that PW2 Shyan Munshi came running
to her and told her that someone had fired
a shot at Jessica Lal and Jessica Lal had
received injuries in that firing.
241.
I also agree with the submissions
made by ld. Special PP that PW20 Beena

Ramani
has
stated
that
she
stopped
one
person namely Sidhartha Vashisht who was

coming along with Shyan Munshi.
him to give her the gun.
deposed
that
she
thought
She told
She has further

that
the
said
person was carrying a gun with him and she

also thought that he had fired a shot at
Jessica Lal. Ld. Special PP has submitted
that this was the feeling of PW20 Beena

page no.133
Ramani and she felt that accused Sidhartha
Vashisht must have fired a shot at Jessica
Lal
but
it
has
been
admitted
by
this
witness PW20 that she had not seen accused

Sidhartha
Vashisht
firing
shot
at
Jessica Lal but it was only her feelings

or that she thought that the accused might
have fired a shot at Jessica Lal on the
day
of
occurrence.
Simply
because
PW20
Beena Ramani had a feeling about accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma that he
might have fired a shot at Jessica Lal
does
not
Vashisht
mean
had
that
accused
actually
fired
Sidhartha
a
shot
at
Jessica Lal. LD. Special PP has submitted

that court should appreciate the feelings
of Smt. Beena Ramani PW20 because she had
thought immediately after the occurrence
that accused
Sharma
had fired a shot at Jessica Lal.
At the same time she has stated that she

is
neither
an
eye
witness
nor
she
was
present at the spot when the incident took

place
nor
she
saw
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma firing a shot at

Jessica Lal.
of
evidence
So this is
that
she
a very weak type
felt
that
accused
might have fired a shot at Jessica Lal. I

page no.134
donot
agree
with
the
contention
of
ld.
Special PP that I should hold that accused

Sidhartha
Vashisht
had
fired
shot
at
Jessica Lal simply because PW Beena Ramani

had a feeling that he might have fired a
shot at her.
242.
Ld.
Special
submitted that
PP
has
further
further submitted before the court that on

the
fateful
night
of
occurrence
he
had
seen accused Mannu Sharma in the party at

Tamarind court cafe and that accused had
asked for two pegs of whisky from him and
he also saw the other co-accused persons
joining him later on. He has identified
other co-accused persons
to be Amardeep
Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav

but
from
Bhojwani
the
it
evidence
only
of
stands
PW1
Deepak
proved
that
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Alok Khanna and Amardeep Singh Gill and
Vikas Yadav were seen in the said party at
Tamarind
Cafe
where
this
incident
took
place. This evidence and the evidence of

other witnesses only show their presence
at the spot.
evidence
of
It has also come in the

PW1
Deepak
Bhojwani,
PW24

page no.135
George Mailhot, PW20 Beena Ramani and PW6
Malini
Ramani
that
there
were
several
persons present in the party it may be

more than 100 persons. PW24 has also given
the list of persons present at the party
which is Ex.PW24/A, so from the evidence
of
this
witness
record
that
present
in
intervening
it
four
has
been
accused
the
party
29/4/99
and
proved
persons
on
the
30/4/99.
on
were
night
So,
agree with the submissions of ld. Spl PP

that these four persons were seen at the
spot of occurrence on the night of 2930/4/99.
243.
Ld.
submitted
Special
that
all
the
PP
has
further
accused
persons
namely Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Amardeep Singh @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna
and Vikas Yadav had come to Tamarind Cafe
in
black
Tata
Safari
registration no.CH-01-W-6535.
bearing
I do not
agree with the contention of ld.Special PP

on this point because no witness has been
produced
in
this
regard
that
accused
persons had come in a Black Tata Safari a t

the spot.

page no.136
244.
Ld.
submitted
were
in
Special
that
all
touch
PP
the
with
has
accused
each
also
persons
other
on
the
mobile phones or on the landline phones

after the occurrence.
the
statement
of
I have gone through
PW16
Raj
Narain
that
several STD calls were made from telephone

no.3782072 to Chandigarh at the telephone
number
of
which was installed at the house
accused
Sharma.
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu
This contention of ld. Special PP
does not carry much force because he has

not
placed
on
record
the
conversation
which took place between all these accused

persons about the commission of crime and
it
has
landline
not
been
phone
proved
and
on
that
phones
from
Mobile
record
where these calls were made were actually

made by
In
the
the accused persons themselves.

absence
of
the
accused
persons,
other persons might have used the mobile

phone or landline phones. Even
otherwise
the calls made from one phone to the other

mobile
phone
involvement
of
does
the
not
prove
accused
in
the
the
commission of crime. Moreover, telephone

number
was installed at the residence of
Sh. D.P. Yadav
and it could not be said

page no.137
that accused Vikas Yadav had made these
calls to Chandigarh to accused Sidhartha
Vashisht.
accused
Nor does it prove that both

persons
were
involved
in
the
PP
further
commission of crime.
245.
Ld.
Special
has
submitted that PW94 SI Bijender Singh
has
recorded conversation between Ashok Dutt

and Ravinder Sudan who had left for USA.
246.
have
conversation
persons
but
gone
through
the
recorded
between
these
two
PW57
Ashok
Dutt
had
categorically stated that no conversation

had
taken
place
between
Ashok
Dutt
and
Ravinder Sudan nor sample of the voice of

Ravinder Sudan and Ashok Dutt were sent
for analysis to CFSL to prove that these
two persons were in conversation with each
other.
Moreover CW1 Dr. Rawel Singh had
also examined the audio cassette and he

opined that
''Shyamjee''
accused had not used the word

but
he
had
used
the
word
''Sangli'' as alleged by the prosecution.

So, the alleged conversation between
PW57
Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Sudan is of no

help to the prosecution.
247.

page no.138
Special
PP
that
Black
Tata
Safari
was being used by Harvinder Chopra as he

was working as Executive Director in M/s
Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd.
prosecution has
evidence
to
But the
not produced any cogent
prove
Safari was being
that
this
Black
Tata
used by accused persons
at the relevant time.
248.
Ld.
that
accused
Singh,
PP
Harvinder
Shyam
harboured
Mannu
Special
Sunder
accused
Sharma
for
has
submitted
Chopra,
Sharma
Sidhartha
giving
Yograj
had
also
Vashisht
him
the
food,
shelter and conveyance etc. I have gone

through the record but it has not been
proved
that
these
accused
persons
have
given Shelter, conveyance and food etc to

accused Shidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
and
they
had
harboured
him
after
the
249.
Ld.
Special
PP
has
further
submitted that accused Sidhartha Vashisht

had
absconded
police
crime
from
immediately
and
he
the
jurisdiction
of
commission
of
after
could
not
be
arrested
immediately on 3/5/99 and 4/5/99 by the

police at all the available addresses of

page no.139
the said accused. I have gone through the
statement of PW87 Inspector
who has deposed
Raman Lamba
that accused Sidhartha
Vashisht could not be arrested on 3/4-599. However he has admitted that on 5/5/99
he
was
informed
by
the
senior
police
officers that accused Amardeep Singh Gill

and Alok Khanna had been arrested by the
police in Delhi and they had disclosed the
involvement of accused Sidhartha Vashisht
@
Mannu
Sharma
in
this
case.
thereafter gave a notice to the

accused
Mannu
Sharma
to
He
father of
produce
him
before the police. He has also admitted

that on 6/5/99 accused Sidhartha Vashisht
surrendered
Chandigarh
before
and
he
the
was
police
produced
by
at
his
counsel Harish Ghai. From the evidence of

this witness it has become clear that on
5/5/99 the Delhi police came to know about
the
involvement
Vashisht
after
of
the
accused
arrest
Sidhartha
of
accused
Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khanna who

had made disclosure statements before the
police
regarding
involvement
of
accused

case. It has also come in the evidence of
PW87 that he had served notice on 5/5/99

page no.140
to
the
father
Vashisht
of
Mannu
accused
Sharma
to
Sidhartha
produce
him
before the police and on 6/5/99 accused

Mannu Sharma surrendered before the Delhi
police at Chandigarh. So this argument of
the
ld.
Special
absconded after
PP
that
accused
had
the commission of crime
does not stand proved. Rather it has been

proved on record that on 5/5/99 a notice
was served on the father of accused and on
6/5/99 he was produced before the police
by his advocate. So I do not agree with
the contention of special PP that accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu
Sharma
had
absconded after the commission of crime.
250.
of
I have also heard the arguments
ld. Counsel for
agree
with
persons
three
the
that
eye
murder
the accused
counsel
prosecution
witnesses
with
for
their
who
own
the
had
had
eyes
and I
accused
examined
seen
the
namely
PW2
Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and PW4 Karan

Rajput.
All these three witnesses have
categorically stated
seen
the
accused
that they have not
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu Sharma firing a shot from his pistol

at Jessica Lal.
All the three witnesses

page no.141
have been declared hostile by special PP
and
in
their
Special
PP
cross
they
examination
by
the
not
support
the
gone
through
the
did
version of prosecution.
251.
statement
given
of
have
of
also
PW2
Shyan
before the court

the
Munshi
the entire
prosecution
examination-in-chief
identified
in
but
accused
who
Mannu
story
detail
he
in
has
Sharma
has
not
having
fired a shot at Jessica Lal. PW2 Shyan

Munshi
has
presence
further
two
deposed
shots
different persons.
were
that
fired
in
his
by
two
One shot was fired at
the roof of the restaurant from one pistol

by
one person
fired
at
and the
Jessica
Lal
other shot was

from
pistol by another person which
the
other
struck on
the head of Jessica Lal as a result of

which she received injuries which resulted
into her death.
So PW2 Shyan Munshi has
given a story that two persons had fired

two
shots
from
two
different
pistols.
While the prosecution story is that only

one person had fired two shots from one
pistol. The story put forward by PW2 Shyan
Munshi has been corroborated by the CFSL

page no.142
report.
Two
fired
recovered
from
bullets were
New Delhi.
the
bullets
spot
and
both
were
these
sent for analysis to CFSL
The CFSL New Delhi opined that
both these fired cartridge were different

in size having different characteristics
and they further
opined that because of
their characteristics they were fired from

two different weapons.
sent
these
two
Prosecution again
fired
cartridges
FSL Jaipur for analysis.
to
The Ballistic
experts at FSL Jaipur also submitted the

report
and
also
cartridges
opined
that
these
two
were of different size and
characteristics
and
these
fired
cartridges were fired from two different

weapons. So both the FSL reports one from
CFSL
New
Jaipur
Delhi
have
and
given
the
a
other
report
from
that
FSL
these
two fired cartridges were fired from two

different pistols. Not only this they have
also
opined
cartridges
that
were
these
different
characteristics and they
two
in
size
fired
and
were fired from
two different weapons. So, the prosecution

story that one person had fired two
shots
from one pistol stands contradicted by the

CFSL
report
and
the
medical
evidence.

page no.143
Rather
this story of two persons firing
two shots from two pistols has been given

by PW2 Shyan Munshi. So in my opinion the
fired two shots from the same pistol has
not
been
proved
on
prosecution. Rather
record
by
the
this story has been
contradicted by CFSL experts.
252.
The
weapon
of
offence
i.e.
Pistol used in the commission of crime has

not been recovered from accused Sidhartha
Vashisht. I have gone through
which reveals
Mannu
the record
that Sidhartha Vashisht @
Sharma was arrested on 6/5/99 and
the police obtained his police remand from

6/5/99
17/5/99
to
12/5/99
but
the
and
from
police
12/5/99
to
failed
to
has
recover the pistol used in the commission

of
crime
from
the
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht. Rather the police had to prepone

the
police
remand
of
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht from 17/5/99 to 15/5/99 as they

failed to get any arm recovered from him.
In my opinion a very important link in the
story of prosecution is missing.
Had the
pistol
accused
been
recovered
Sidhartha Vashisht
from
it could have linked

page no.144
him with the commission of crime but on
account
of
non
recovery
of
pistol
this
vital link in the chain is missing.

253.
submitted
that
police
had
shown
15
photographs to P.W.2 Shyan Munshi but he

did not identify photographs of any of the
accused
persons.
agree
with
the
contention of ld. Counsel on this point as

I have gone through the statement of PW2
Shyan Munshi who has deposed before the
court that SI Sharad Kumar has shown him
15 photographs including the photograph of
accused
persons
but
he
told
the
police
that none of the accused persons was that

of the accused persons
who was involved
in the commission of crime.

254.
PW2
Shyan
Munshi
has
stated
that he can neither speak Hindi nor he can

write in Hindi. He had made a statement to
the police in English but the police asked
him to sign his statement which was in
Hindi and he had signed that statement in
good faith.
He does not know what was
recorded by the police in that statement.

PW 23 Rouble Dunglay has stated before the
court that PW2 Shyan Munshi always talked
to
him
in
English
as
he
did
not
know

page no.145
Hindi.
255.
of

ld.
Counsel
Sidhartha
for
Vashisht
the
accused
Mannu
that
Sharma
had
purchased 25 rounds of .22 bore against

his licence from PW7 Naveen Chopra and PW7
has
deposed
that
all
these
rounds
were
bearing mark KF on the head of the round.

He has further deposed
that
KF
stands
for
before the court

Kirki
Factory
and
these 25 cartridges sold to him were made

in
India
Ballistic
at
Kirki
expert
cartridge which
Factory
have
opined
while
the
that
two
were recovered from the
spot were bearing mark 'C' on their head

and this mark C stands for manufacturing
company CCI from USA which proves that the
fired bullets
which were recovered from
the spot were manufactured by CCI company

of USA whereas the 25 rounds which were
purchased by accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma were made in Kirki factory
in
India.
So
even
the
two
spent
cartridges recovered from the spot which

were used in the commission of crime have
not matched with the 25 cartridges which
were
purchased
by
accused
immediately

page no.146
before the commission of crime. So these
fired cartridges recovered from the spot
do not connect accused Sidhartha Vashisht
with
256.
also
agree
with
the
counsel
for accused that on 30/4/99 the police had

decided
to
frame
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
@ Mannu Sharma in this case.
have gone through the statement of PW101

Insp.
Surender
Kumar
Sharma
who
has
deposed before the court that on 30/4/99

in the morning he had received information
from his senior police officers about the
involvement of accused Sidhartha Vashisht
@ Mannu Sharma in this case. He had also
come to know that Black Tata Safari found
in
Tamarind
Cafe
belonged
to
accused
Sidhartha Vashisht so he sent SI Pankaj

Malik
on
30/4/99
to
secure
Black
Tata
Safari and also to arrest accused Mannu

Sharma.
So
decided
that
it
appears
accused
that
Sidhartha
PW101
had
Vashisht
was involved in the commission of crime

and that Black Tata Safari was also used
by accused Sidhartha Vashisht while coming
to the spot. Although the police had not
collected any evidence to this effect nor

page no.147
statement of any witness was recorded by
the police
regarding the involvement of

in
this
case.
Nor
any
evidence
was
collected by the police but still PW101

admits that
he had received information
from senior police officers that accused

Sidhartha
Vashisht
commission
of
was
crime.
involved
agree
in
the
with
the
contention of ld. counsel for accused that

the police had decided to fix accused in
this case although there was no evidence
available with the police on record about
his involvement in this case.
257.
of ld. counsel for the accused that PW30

Delhi
Home
present
Guard
at
Sharwan
the
spot
on
Kumar
the
was
night
not
of
occurrence i.e. on the night of 29-30-499,
As
per
DD
mentioned that
no.40A
it
is
clearly
Delhi Home Guard Sharwan
Kumar PW30 had left the police station at

about 2.20 a.m
along with DD no.40A to
give the copy of the DD to SI Rishi Pal

who was present at village Dera.
PW101 Insp.
Whereas
Surender Sharma has deposed
that he had taken Delhi Home Guard Sharwan

Kumar
along
with
him
to
the
spot
at

page no.148
2.25am.
is
The presence of PW30 at the spot
contrary to the record maintained at
the police station.

258.
PW101 Insp. Surender Sharma has
admitted in the cross examination that he

left
the
police
station
alongwith
ASI
Kailash, Ct. Ram Niwas, Ct. Ramphal and

Ct. Yatender Singh. He has also admitted
that the names of these four persons have
been
mentioned
in
the
DD
No.43A
having
left the police station along with him.

DD no.43A is an entry in which he has made
departure entry of himself along with four
police officials but there is no mention
of name of Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar
having
left
with
him
in
this
DD
entry
no.43A Ex.PW13/D1 which further shows that

as per DD no.43A Delhi Home Guard Sharwan
Kumar PW30 had not left the police station
for
the
spot
along
with
PW101
Insp.
Surender Sharma and he has been introduced

as a witness by PW101 in order to create a
false
persons.
evidence
Once
against
PW30
Delhi
the
accused
Home
Guard
Sharwan Kumar has left the police station

at about 2.20am for Dera village as per
the
DD
question
no.40A
of
Ex.PW13/D1,
PW30
Sharwan
there
Kumar
is
no
again

page no.149
going
along
with
PW101
Insp.
Surender
Sharma at 2.25am from the PS to
the spot
because both these things are contrary to

each other.
Either PW 30 Delhi Home Guard
Sharwan Kumar can be at Dera village or he

can be at the spot. He cannot be present
at both the places as per the record of
the police station itself.
259.
I have also gone through the DD
no.44 wherein it has been mentioned that

at about 3.05am a rukka has been sent by
SI Rishi Pal to Duty officer
for
registration
of
case
PS Mehrauli
against
the
accused at PS Dera bearing FIR no.286/99

u/s 308 IPC which further proves that SI
Rishi Pal has gone to Dera village from
where he had sent a rukka for registration
of
the
case
at
police
station.
Once
Sharwan Kumar has gone to Dera village his

presence at the gate of police station is
out
of
question
and
further
that
he
accompanied Surender Kumar Sharma for the

spot is also out of question. PW30 Sharwan
Kumar
has
admitted
examination
that
in
the
there
cross
was
no
advertisement made by the police party for

recruitment
of
the
constables
in
the
newspaper nor he had applied against any

page no.150
such advertisement.
He has also admitted
that for recruitment of the constables the

minimum qualification is Matriculation and
there is also age bar for the recruitment
to the post of constable and the person
who is between age of 18 to 21 can only be
recruited as constable in the police.
He
also admitted that he is under matric and

he is overage as his age is 27 years and
he is not eligible to become a constable.
He
has
also
recommendation
admitted
of
that
PW101
on
Insp.
the
Surender
Kumar Sharma and the other senior officers

he was appointed as constable out of turn
and
as
special
case
in
Delhi
Police
which further shows that PW30 who was not

present
at
the
spot
and
he
has
been
rewarded by the Delhi police for giving

false evidence in this case against the
accused persons. He has been promoted out
of turn and as a special case although he
is not eligible to become a constable in
Delhi
police
due
to
his
under
qualification and his being overage. Still

he has been given this temptation so that
he may give false evidence in this case.
260.
of ld. Counsel for accused persons
that

page no.151
PW30 Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar has
also made substantial
improvements in his
statement made before the court.
In the
cross examination he has stated that 3-4

vehicles were standing on one side and one
Tata Safari was standing separately. This
portion
was
got
confronted
with
his

it is not so recorded.
261.
He
has
further
deposed
before
the court that he had checked up all the

vehicles
portion
which
was
were
got
found
locked.
confronted
with
This
his
statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC wherein it

is not so recorded.
262.
He
has
further
deposed
before
the court that he had started his duty

the
place
where
parked. This
Black
Tata
Safari
at
was
portion was got confronted
with his statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC

wherein it is not so recorded.
263.
He
has
further
deposed
before
the court that he had joined SHO at the

gate of police station for going to the
spot.
This
portion
was
got
confronted
with his statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC

wherein it is not so recorded.
264.
He
has
further
deposed
before

page no.152
the court that SHO while leaving the spot
had instructed him to remain at the spot.
This portion was got confronted with his
is not so recorded.
265.
He
has
further
deposed
before
the court that vehicle Tata Sierra came

slowly and took a U-turn at the spot, this
portion
was
got
confronted
with
his

is not so recorded.
266.
the
He
court
has
that
further
Black
deposed
Tata
before
Safari
was
attempted to be opened with a key, this

portion
was
statement
got
confronted
recorded
u/s161
with
Cr.PC
his
wherein
the word 'key' is not mentioned.

267.
He
has
further
deposed
before
the court that he had asked the accused

not to open the Black Tata Safari but he
opened
it
and
entered
forcibly
in
the
Black Tata Safari, this portion was got

confronted
u/s161
with his statement recorded
Cr.PC
wherein
it
is
not
so
recorded.
268.
He
has
further
deposed
before
the court that he does not know how many

police officials were present inside the

page no.153
Qutub Colonnade at that time. He has told
the
fact
removed
of
Black
from
the
Tata
Safari
spot
to
being
one
Head
Constable but he does know his name nor he

knows from which police station that Head
constable had come, this portion was
confronted
u/s161
got
with his statement recorded
Cr.PC
wherein
it
is
not
so
recorded.
269.
He
has
further
deposed
before
the court that he does not know if the

window pane had broken or not. He has also
not handed over the danda to the police.
He has further deposed before the court
that he noted down the number of Black
Tata Safari on his palm, this fact was not
mentioned either in the statement u/s161
Cr.PC or in the case diary.
270.
of
ld.
Insp.
counsel
Surender
introduced
glass
No
accused
Kumar
that
Sharma
PW101
has
also
the story of broken pieces of
recovered from Black Tata Safari.
such
broken
recovered
Safari
for
from
by
PW91
pieces
of
glass
were
inside
the
Black
Tata
SI
Dubey
BD
who
had
through
the
recovered the vehicle from Noida.

271.
have
also
gone

page no.154
statement of PW91 SI BD Dubey
stated
that
on
information on
2/5/99
on
who has
receipt
of
telephone that a vehicle
involved in Jessica Lal murder case was

parked at NTPC township. He went to the
spot
and
bearing
seized
the
Black
no.CH-01-W-6535
conducted
thorough
Tata
and
search
of
Safari
he
also
the
said
vehicle vide memo Ex.PW74/A. From inside

the vehicle he recovered one .22 bore live
cartridge alongwith cassettes but he has
not mentioned about the recovery of any
broken pieces of glass in his memo at all.
Nor he has stated in his statement about
the recovery of glass in the Black Tata
Safari.
In the cross examination he has
admitted
that
no
pieces
of
glass
found inside the Black Tata Safari.
were
He
has also admitted in the cross examination

that when he reached PS Sector-34, Noida,
he found police of PS Mehrauli and also
found media persons present at the police
station on 2/5/99
he
he also admitted that
joined police of PS Mehrauli
investigation
itself.
Dubey
of
this
This version
case
on
in the
2/5/99
of PW91 SI BD
is also contrary to the statement
of PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar Sharma as he

page no.155
has
deposed
before
the
court
that
on
2/5/99 he received information about the

seizure
of
Black
Tata
Safari
by
Noida
police. On 3/5/99 he moved an application

before the Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad
and in the said application he requested
the Magistrate to release the vehicle on
supardari.
The application of the IO is
Ex.PW101/1
and
the
order
of
the
ld.
Judicial Magistrate is Ex.PW101/2. In the

application Ex.PW101/1 it is only prayed
that Black Tata Safari may be released to
the
Delhi
police
and
in
the
order
Ex.PW101/2 it is mentioned that only Black

Tata
Safari
may
be
released
to
Delhi
police, There is no mention of release of

any
other
article
including
the
broken
pieces of glass.
272.
have
also
gone
through
statement of PW91 SI BD Dubey

deposed
joined
before
the
investigation
Insp.
Surender
the
court
Delhi
on
2/5/99
Kumar
who has
that
police
he
in
whereas
Sharma
the
has
has
the
PW101
stated
that he has seized the vehicle from Noida

police on 3/5/99. Pw101 has further stated
before the court that SI BD Dubey handed
over to him broken piece of glass seized

page no.156
from the Black Tata Safari but there is no
mention
in
the
order
passed
by
the
Judicial Magistrate for release of broken

pieces
of
glass
nor
his
version
gets
corroboration from PW91 SI BD Dubey about

handing
over
of
broken
piece
of
glass.
After going through the statement of both

these witnesses I am of the opinion that
PW101 has introduced the story of broken
pieces of glass in his statement and there
is no mention of the same in the seizure
memo Ex.PW74/A nor it is mentioned in the
order of ld. Magistrate and I also hold
that broken pieces of glass were
never
seized from Black Tata Safari and this has

been
prove
introduced
the
by
PW101
prosecution
in
order
to
case
against
the
gone
through
the
accused persons.
273.
have
statement of
Sharma
who
also
PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar

has
further
cross examination that

is seizure memo
admitted
in
his
Ex.PW100/DB which
in respect of
all the
articles seized by him was written by SI

Vijay
Kumar and he has also admitted that
he had gone to Noida along with SI Vijay

Kumar on 3/5/99 but SI Vijay Kumar has
stated
that
he
has
joined
the

page no.157
investigation of this case for the first
time on 18/5/99 and never joined the same
on
3/5/99
which
further
falsifies
the
statement of PW101.
274.
have
also
gone
through
the
statement of PW100 who has deposed before

the court in his cross examination that on
30/4/99 at about 3.15pm SHO Insp. Surender
Kumar Sharma met him and informed him that
the
vehicle
Black
no.CH-01-W-6535
the
name
of
Tata
Safari
bearing
which is registered in
Picadilly
Agro
Industries
Limited has been found in Karnal by the

police. So the evidence of this witness
contradicts the stand of the police that
the said vehicle was recovered by police
of PS Sector 24 Noida whereas this vehicle
had already been recovered from Karnal as
per the statement of PW100 SI Sunil Kumar.
It further proves that Black Tata Safari
was not recovered in the jurisdiction of
PS Sector 24, Noida, but it had already
been recovered at
Karnal and police has
concocted a false story and falsely got

recovered
police
it
at
station
UP
at
while
Sector
this
24
vehicle
Noida
was
already in the custody of police as it was

recovered from Karnal on 30/4/99.

page no.158
275.
of ld. Counsel for the accused that there

is
no
evidence
on
record
to
show
that
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav and Alok
Khanna had come in a
Black Tata Safari to
Qutub
the
Colonnade
on
night
of
29-
30/4/99. PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar Sharma

has admitted in his cross examination that
he has not recorded the statement of any
witness to the effect that these accused
persons had come in Black Tata Safari on
the night of occurrence. It has also not
been proved on record by the prosecution
that accused
Sharma had been using Black Tata Safari

bearing
time.
this
no.CH-01-W-6535
at
the
relevant
No witness has been examined in

regard
to
prove
that
accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma had been

using
this
car
at
the
relevant
time.
However, PW48 has deposed before the court

that Black Tata Safari bearing no. CH-01W-6535
belongs
to
Industries
and
this
Harvinder
Chopra
Picadilly
car
who
was
was
Agro
alloted
working
to
as
Executive Director in the company. He has

nowhere
deposed
in
his
statement
that

page no.159
was using the said Black Tata Safari at
the relevant time.
276.
of

ld.
counsel
prosecution
mobile
has
phone
for
the
failed
accused
to
no.9811096893
connect
with
that
the
accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. PW101

has admitted
mobile
that neither the aforesaid
phone
nor
its
sim
card
were
recovered from accused Sidhartha Vashisht

@
Mannu
Sharma.
Prosecution
has
not
produced a single witness in the court to

prove that this mobile phone was owned by
him
and was being used by accused Mannu
Sharma. So in my opinion the prosecution

has failed to prove on record that accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma had been
using the aforesaid mobile phone at the
time of commission of crime or after the
date of occurrence.
277.
of ld. Counsel for accused that PW1 Deepak

Bhojwani has been introduced as a false
witness in this case by the prosecution.
PW24 George
Mailhot has admitted before
the court that he had submitted a list of

guests
who
had
attended
the
party
at

page no.160
Tamarind Cafe at Qutub Colonnade on the
night of 29-30/4/99. In the list Ex.PW24/A
the name of PW1 Deepak Bhojwani is not
mentioned at all.
admitted before the court that he was very

friendly to Jessica Lal and he had been
frequenting her house quite often before
her death.
He was also
acquainted with
the sister of Jessica Lal.
PW73
Sabrina
Lal who is the sister of Jessica Lal has

categorically stated before the court that
when she went to Ashlok Hospital to see
her injured sister Jessica Lal she met few
persons
hospital
who
were
but
she
known
has
to
not
her
at
the
mentioned
the
name of Deepak Bhojwani in her statement

before the court.
It is admitted by the
IO PW101 that statement of Deepak Bhojwani

PW1 was recorded on 14/5/99 i.e. after 15
days of the occurrence.
This occurrence
took place on the night of 29-30/4/99 but

the
after
statement
15
days.
of
witness
No
was
explanation
recorded
has
been
given by the police as to why statement of

such
an
important
witness
has
been
recorded after 15 days of the occurrence.

This also casts a doubt on the presence of
Deepak Bhojwani PW1 at the spot and it

page no.161
appears that he was introduced later on by
the police to depose against the accused
persons. Moreover Deepak Bhojwani PW1 is
an interested witness as he was known to
the deceased, her sister and her parents.
Deepak
Bhojwani
had
deposed
before
the
court that when injured Jessica Lal was

removed to Ashlok hospital he also went to
Ashlok hospital and he also found police
present
there.
PW1
Deepak
Bhojwani
has
further stated that from Ashlok hospital

he went to Apollo hospital and he met the
police at Apollo hospital and he gave the
police the description of the person who
was involved in the commission of crime.
He went to his house after Jessica Lal was
declared
dead
hospital.
by
This
the
fact
Doctor
does
at
not
the
find
corroboration from the statement of other

witnesses.
PW29
Sahana
Mukherjee
has
stated before the court that she did not

see the police at Apollo hospital although
she
had
met
police
at
Ashlok
hospital.
Similarly PW 73 Sabrina Lal has deposed

before
the
present at
court
that
police
was
not
Apollo Hospital although she
had met police at Ashlok Hospital. From

the statement of these two persons it has

page no.162
been confirmed that police had not reached
the hospital when Jessica Lal was declared
dead. This fact is further confirmed by
PW100
SI
Sunil
Kumar
who
has
deposed
before the court that DD was recorded at

the
police
station
at
death of Jessica Lal.

Sharad
5.30am
regarding
Thereafter he, SI
Kumar and SI Rishi Pal went to
the hospital.
These police officials must
have reached the hospital at 7am and SI

Sharad Kumar
has nowhere deposed before
the court that he met PW1 Deepak Bhojwani

at Apollo hospital nor he stated before
the court that Deepak Bhojwani told him
anything
about
accused
involved
the
description
in
the
of
commission
the
of
crime nor this witness told him about the

description of Mannu Sharma having met him
and having asked for the drinks at Qutub
Colonnade Tamarind Cafe restaurant. PW90
Durga
Prasad
has
deposed
that
name
of
Deepak Bhojwani does not find mention in

the list Ex.PW24/A given by PW24 George
Mailhot. PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has deposed
before
the
court
that
he
met
accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma at 1am

at Tamarind cafe and within 15 minutes he
heard about firing of shot whereas this

page no.163
incident had taken place after 2am. This
further falsifies the claim of PW1 Deepak
Bhojwani that he was present at the spot
at the relevant time.
PW1 has also made
improvements in the statement made before

the
court
and
his
statement
is
neither
reliable nor trustworthy as he has been

introduced
as
false
witness
by
the
police. I hold that this witness has been

introduced
by
the
police
in
order
to
falsely implicate the accused persons in

this case.
278.
Ramani
The
is
evidence
also
prosecution. PW6
of
no
of
PW6
help
Malini
to
the
has deposed before the
court that one person had asked her for

drinks and also from Jessica Lal. Accused
Sidhartha
looks
Vashisht
like
that
Mannu
person.
In
Sharma
the
just
cross
examination she has admitted that accused

Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu
Sharma
was
shown to her at the police station by the

police. She also says that the photograph
of the culprits were shown to her between
1/5/99 to 5/5/99.
She has also stated
that on 7/5/99 she along with her parents

had reached police station where accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu
Sharma
was

page no.164
shown to her and also her parents at the
interrogation centre. She is not sure if
Mannu Sharma is the same person who had
asked for drink from Jessica Lal. She has
only stated that Mannu Sharma looks like
that person. So this identification is no
identification in the eyes of law. In my
opinion the evidence of this witness is
also of no help to the prosecution.
279.
of ld. Counsel for accused that evidence

of PW20 Beena Ramani is also of no help to
the prosecution.
deposed
before
PW20 Beena Ramani has

the
court
that
she
was
present at Tamarind Court Cafe in Qutub

Colonnade when she heard one shot and a
moment later she heard another shot being
fired by someone in the restaurant.
PW2
Shyan Munshi came to her along with one

more
person
when
Jessica
Lal
had
been
shot. She stopped the companion of Shyan

Munshi.
She
has
pointed
out
towards

and has stated that Sidhartha Vasisht is
somewhat like that person. She has again
deposed before the court that it does not
satisfy
her
that
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht is the same person whom she had

page no.165
met
alongwith PW2 Shyan Munshi. So from
the evidence of this witness it has become

clear
that
even
she
herself
is
not
satisfied that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

Sharma is the same person whom she had
confronted
Shyan
that
at
the
Munshi.
she
restaurant
She
thinks
has
that
alongwith
further
accused
deposed
Amardeep
Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav

were also with him. She was not sure even
about the presence of Amardeep Singh Gill,
Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav at the spot.
280.
also
agree
with
the
contention of ld. Counsel for accused that

PW24 George Mailhot was not present at the
Tamarind court cafe at the time of the
incident.
have
gone
through
the
statement of PW86 Jagan Nath Jha who has

deposed
before
the
court
that
George
Mailhot had gone out of Qutub Colonnade at

12.30 midnight on the day of occurrence
and he came back to the Qutub Colonnade
after Jessica Lal had been removed to the
hospital.
PW46
Madan
Kumar
has
deposed
before the court that he was working as a

waiter in the restaurant. He has further
deposed that on the night of 29-30/4/99
PW24
George
Mailhot
had
left
the

page no.166
restaurant at 12.30 midnight and he did
not see George Mailhot thereafter at the
restaurant
nor
he
saw
George
Mailhot
present at the place of incident. So it

has
been
these
proved
two
from
the
witnesses
that
statements
PW24
of
George
Mailhot had gone out of the restaurant at

the
time
of
introduced
incident
as
and
false
he
witness
has
been
in
this
case.
281.
of ld. Counsel for accused that police has

failed to prove the conversation between
PW 57 Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Sudan @ Titu
at
USA.
PW94
SI
Brijender
Singh
has
deposed that he had taken Ashok Dutt to

the telephone booth and Ashok Dutt had a
detailed conversation with Ravinder Sudan
who is at USA with regard to the pistol
which
Sharma
was
handed
and
commission
over
which
of
by
was
crime.
accused
used
He
Mannu
in
has
the
further
deposed that accused Ravinder Sudan @ Titu

has told Ashok Dutt that pistol was with
Shyam Sunder Sharma.
282.
PW94
SI
Brijender
Singh
has
admitted in the cross examination that he

has not verified the telephone number 001-

page no.167
526-7751236 and 001-7184768403 nor he has
verified
as
to
whether
these
telephone
numbers were installed at the residence of

Ravinder Sudan
@ Titu or not. He has also
deposed before the court that he has not

verified
about
the
ownership
of
this
telephone at USA. He has also admitted in

cross examination that voices of Ravinder
Sudan as well as Ashok Dutt were not sent
for
examination to the CFSL to verify
that the voice belongs to Ashok Dutt and

Ravinder Sudan. Moreover PW 57 Ashok Dutt
was
examined
in
the
court
and
he
has
turned hostile and he has stated that he

had never dialed any number at America nor
he
had
America.
talk
So
with
the
Ravinder
evidence
of
Sudan
PW57
at
Ashok
Dutt is also of no help to the prosecution

and it has not been proved on record that
pistol was handed over to accused Ravinder
Sudan
by
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
or
that the said pistol was with Shyam Sunder

Sharma.
283.
Prosecution has also examined
one expert witness CW1 Dr. Rawel Singh,
who
had
translated
the
conversation
between Ashok Dutt PW57 and accused
Ravinder Sudan into English and Hindi and
he has deposed that caller on the other

page no.168
side has used the word ''Sangli'' and not
''Shyamjee''. So the evidence of this
expert witness is also of no help to the
prosecution.
284.
of
ld.
Counsel
for
accused
Vikas
Yadav
that prosecution has failed to prove its

case against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
PW27
Pratap
Malik
has
deposed
before the court that accused Vikas Yadav

is one of the Directors in the company
namely
Yadu
Overseas
Limited
and
this
company has got registered office at Delhi

whereas its place of business is in Imphal
and other North Eastern states.
Vikas
Yadav
had
gone
to
Accused
Manipur
in
connection with the business and when he

came to know about his involvement in the
case he applied for anticipatory bail in
Imphal and bail was granted by the said
court. However,
on 26/5/99 Gauhati High
Court stayed the bail order granted by the

the
court
at
Imphal.
The
accused
surrendered before the court of ld. MM at

New Delhi on 29/5/99 and on the same day
court of ld. MM granted him bail in this
case, however Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
cancelled the bail order granted by ld. MM

page no.169
against accused Vikas Yadav on 7/7/99. On
7/7/99 itself accused surrendered before
the
court
of
and
he
remained in custody upto August 1999.
On
13/8/99 the
MM
at
New
Delhi
Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered
him to apply for fresh bail before the

Sessions Court and Sessions Court granted
him bail in this case.
I am, therefore,
convinced that accused Vikas Yadav had not

absconded from the jurisdiction of court
and the police and I do not agree with the
contention of ld. Special PP that accused
Vikas
Yadav
had
absconded
immediately
after the commission of crime.
Accused
Vikas Yadav had applied for anticipatory

bail in Imphal and he has also appeared
before the court of MM.
He was available
to the Delhi police from time to time and

he had not absconded from the jurisdiction
of the court and the
285.
have
police.
also
gone
through
the statement of PW20 Beena Ramani who has

deposed before the court that she thinks
Amadeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas
Yadav were also present at the spot on the
date
of
Sidhartha
occurrence
Vashisht
along
on
with
the
accused
night
of
incident but she is not sure about the

page no.170
presence of these three accused persons.
She
has
further
examination
admitted
that
she
in
the
had
cross
seen
the
photographs of all the accused persons in

the
newspaper
and
in
the
Television.
However PW20 Beena Ramani has identified

accused
Vikas
Yadav
for
the
first
time
before the Sessions Court after 2 and a

half years of the occurrence. And in her
statement before the court she has stated
that she thinks that he was present in the
party although she had only a glimpse of
accused
Vikas
Yadav
and
others
in
the
party for one minute or two minutes, so it

is impossible to identify such a person
after 2 and a half years in the court.
286.
the
I
statement
Sharwan
Kumar
already
been
foregoing
have
of
also
PW30
and
Delhi
his
rejected
paragraphs.
gone
through
Home
testimony
by
me
Evidence
in
of
Guard
has
the
this
witness is of no help to the prosecution

against accused Vikas Yadav also.
287.
have
also
gone
through
the statement of PW90 Sh. C.K.Jain CFSL

expert,
New
Delhi
who
has
also
deposed
before the court in cross examination that

the pieces of glass were sent to him for

page no.171
examination of the same. Monogram S2 and
S1
are
of
the
same
company.
He
has
further deposed that he has not examined

the vehicle from where the glass pieces
were
recovered.
So
he
cannot
say
from
which vehicle the glass pieces were taken.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have already
discussed that even the recovery of glass
pieces have become doubtful. It has not
been proved on record that glass pieces
were recovered from Black Tata Safari.
288.
also
agree
with
the
contention of ld. Counsel for the accused

that no chance prints were lifted from the
Black Tata Safari bearing no.CH-01-W-6535.
It would have been a valuable piece of
evidence regarding a person who had used
Black
Tata
Safari
at
the
time
of
commission of crime but the police did not

lift
piece
chance
of
prints.
evidence
So
is
very
not
important
available
on
record.
289.
of ld. counsel for the accused that the

witnesses examined by the prosecution with
regard to the abscontion of the accused

page no.172
Vikas Yadav have also turned hostile. PW72
Lal Singh has stated that accused Vikas
Yadav
had
Hotel on
Singh
not
stayed
at
Sariska
Palace
9/5/99 similarly PW77 Gajender
has also deposed that accused Vikas
Yadav had never stayed at Sariska Palace

hotel on the aforesaid date.
PW54 Varun
Shah Manager at Shakti Resorts has also

stated
that
one
Suresh
Shekhar
had
visited their resort on 10.5.99 and not

accused Vikas Yadav.
So this witness has
also
the
not
supported
case
of
the
prosecution. It has not been proved that

accused
Vikas
Yadav
had
absconded
and
stayed at Sariska Palace hotel and Shakti

resorts after the commission of crime.
290.
have
also
gone
through
the
statement of PW52 Chandra Prakash Chabra

and
PW71
Harvinder
Singh.
Both
these
witnesses have turned hostile and have not

stated
even
single
word
implicating
accused Raja Chopra with the commission of

crime.
They
have
categorically
stated
that no vehicle was provided by accused

Raja Chopra to any
persons.
So
prosecution
the
against
of
the
allegation
accused
accused
of
Raja
the
Chopra

page no.173
that he had harboured accused persons by
providing the vehicle to them
has not
been proved on record.
291.
also
agree
with
the
contention of ld.counsel for accused that

even if it is presumed for the sake of
arguments that the accused persons namely
Sidhartha Vashisht, Amardeep Singh Gill,
Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were present
at the party on the fateful night of this
occurrence they cannot be convicted simply
because they were present at the party.
There were more than 100 people present at
the said party on the night of occurrence.
Prosecution has failed to bring any cogent
and
reliable
evidence
against
these
accused persons connecting them with the

292.
of the ld. counsel for

photographs
of
all
the accused that
the
accused
persons
namely Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas
Yadav were shown to the witnesses.
PW6
Malini Ramani has admitted in the cross

examination
before
the
court
that

page no.174
photograph
of
persons
were
parents
i.e.
the
aforesaid
shown
to
Beena
her
accused
and
Ramani
to
and
her
George
Mailhot at the police station as well as

at Interrogation centre between 1/5/99 to
5/5/99.
Kumar
PW30
has
arrest
Delhi
also
of
admitted
accused
detained
in
Mehrauli
where
Mehrauli.
Home
Guard
that
persons
lockup
he
at
after
they
police
was
Sharwan
the
were
station
posted
at
PS
PW6 Malini Ramani and PW20
Beena Ramani have also deposed that when

they
visited
the
police
station
and
interrogation centre accused persons were

detained there by the police. So all these
witnesses
had
seen
accused persons
were
also
arrest.
the
photographs
of
and the accused persons
shown
to
them
after
their
In my opinion the accused persons
had rightly refused to participate in the

TIP
as
they
were
already
shown
to
the
witnesses. Conducting of TIP was only a

farce. Refusal by these accused persons in
the participation of TIP is justified.
293.
contention
I
of
also
ld.
agree
counsel
with
for
the
accused
Shyam Sunder Sharma that no evidence has

come against accused Shyam Sunder Sharma

page no.175
regarding
his
involvement
in
the
destruction of evidence and for harbouring

the accused in this case. All the three
witnesses
PW57
Ashok
Dutt,
PW60
Baldev
Singh and PW68 Mangal Singh examined by

the prosecution
have turned hostile and
even in their cross examination conducted

by ld. Special PP they have categorically
denied
the
suggestions
Special
PP
accused
Shyam
commission
put
regarding
of
Sunder
crime.
prosecution that
by
the
ld.
involvement
of
Sharma
The
in
story
of
the
the
he gave Rs.70,000/- to
accused Ravinder Krishan Sudan to go to

America has not been proved on record by
the prosecution against the accused Shyam
Sunder Sharma.
294.
contention
of
also
ld.
agree
Counsel
with
for
the
accused
persons that no case has been proved by

the
prosecution
against
accused
Yograj
Singh, Harwinder Chopra, Raja Chopra and

Vikas Gill
as none of the prosecution
witnesses have come forward to state that

they
had
conveyance
given
to
food,
accused
or
shelter
had
and
harboured

after the commission of crime.
Witnesses

page no.176
PW52 Chander Prakash Chabra, PW64 Ravinder
Singh Gill, PW 65 Kulwinder Singh, PW69
Rakesh Atri and PW71 Harminder Singh and
all the
remaining witnesses examined on
this point have turned hostile and have

not uttered even a single word against the
accused persons
implicating them in the
295.
Keeping
in
view
the
discussions made above I have come to the

conclusion that all the links in the chain
of evidence
produced by the prosecution
are either missing or broken.
Firstly all
the three witnesses PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3

Shiv
Dass
and
PW4
Karan
Rajput
have
turned hostile and none of these witnesses

have
stated
that
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma has fired a shot

at Jessica Lal as a result of which she
received injuries which resulted into her
death.
Secondly,
the
pistol
which
was
used in the commission of crime has not

been
recovered
by
the
police
from
the

Thirdly, the story of the prosecution that
one person had fired two shots from the
same
pistol
stands
CFSL
report
New
contradicted
Delhi
and
FSL
by
the
report

page no.177
Jaipur
which
states
cartridges recovered
that
two
fired
from the spot were
bearing different characteristics and were

of different size and were used from two
different weapons. Fourthly, the 25 rounds
which
have
been
shown
to
have
been
purchased by accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu
Sharma
are
manufactured
by
Kirki
Factory in India whereas the CFSL experts

have
proved
that
the
two
fired
bullets
recovered from the spot were made by CCI

company of USA.
chain
of
evidence
prosecution
bullets
So even this link in the

produced
stands
recovered
broken
from
by
as
the
the
the
spot
fired
do
not
link 25 cartridges which accused Sidhartha

Vashisht
from
PW7
Mannu
Naveen
Sharma
had
Chopra.
purchased
So,
very
important link is missing in the chain of

evidence produced by the prosecution.
296.
Prosecution has also failed to
prove that accused persons had used Black

Tata Safari Car at the time of incident or
that
they
had
come
in
that
Black
Tata
Safari car at the spot.

297.
prove on record that the pistol used in

page no.178
the commission of crime was handed over by
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
to
accused
Ravindra
Krishan Sudan.
298.
prove that accused Harvinder

Chopra,
Vikas
Gill,
Chopra, Raja
Yograj
Singh
and
accused Shyam Sunder Sharma had provided

conveyance,
food
and
shelter
to
the
accused persons and had also harboured the

accused
persons.
There
is
no
evidence
produced by the prosecution in this regard

to prove the charges framed against the
accused persons.
299.
prove that accused persons had absconded

from
the
crime.
spot
after
the
commission
of
However, the accused persons have
rightly refused to participate in the TIP

as their photographs have been shown
to
the witnesses in this case.
300.
I,
therefore,
hold
that
prosecution has miserably failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt against
any
of
the
accused
persons.
All
the
accused persons are, therefore, ordered to

be
acquitted
against them.
of
the
offences
charged

page no.179
301.
Accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht
Mannu Sharma is acquitted of the offence

charged u/s 302/201/120B IPC and u/s 27 of
Arms Act.
Accused Amardeep Singh Gill @
Tony Gill, accused Vikas Yadav and accused

Alok Khanna are acquitted of the offences
charged
Harvinder
u/s
Chopra,
Singh and
the
120B/201
Raja
Vikas Gill
offence
IPC.
charged
Accused
Chopra,
Yograj
are acquitted of
u/s
212
IPC
and
accused Shyam Sunder Sharma is acquitted

of the offence
charged
u/s 201/212 IPC.
302.
Their bail bonds and surety
bonds
are
cancelled.
Sureties
are
discharged.
303.
Accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma is ordered to be released
forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 21st February 2006
(S.L. BHAYANA)
Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi

Jessica Lal-Trial Court Judgment PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Jessica Lal-Trial Court Judgment PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

challan against the accused persons u/s.

before the court of ld. MM. The Ld. MM

Judge marked this case to the predecessor

prosecution case are that on 29.4.99 at

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

Thursday party was going on. At Thursday

Jessica Lal and Shyan

present at Tamarind cafe situated at Qutub

waiter were also present there, one person

The waiter did not serve him the

Jessica Lal and Malini Ramani, who, were

also tried to make him

understand that party was over and that

left eye as a result of

rushed to Ashlok hospital from where she

Charge u/s 302/201/120B IPC and

has been framed

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

Charge u/s 120B/201 IPC has

been framed against accused Vikas Yadav,

Gill and Yograj Singh.

Charge u/s 201/212

IPC has been framed against accused

read over to the accused persons to which

deposed before the court that he

the party on 29/4/99. At about 11'O clock

Lal (since deceased)

Jessica Lal was wearing blue denim shorts

a model by profession. On that day the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

When he was moving

around in the party he came into contact

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

liquor for him on which he told him that

one sikh gentleman came from behind

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and told

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill.)

further deposed that accused Tony Gill had

closed and the waiters were in the process

20 minutes he heard somebody saying that

Tamarind cafe and saw Jessica lying on the

hospital. He also followed them in his own

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

then shifted to Apollo hospital where she

accused Mannu Sharma and

accused Tony Gill, which he identified.

witness. He has not supported the case of

Alcohol and food was being sold there on

He had met Jessica Lal on that

night in the party and the party was going

counter in the open space. Besides Jessica

persons who were helping in serving liquor

At about 2am there were about

6-7 persons inside the Cafe at that time.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

Jessica was also there on the other side

clothes. This witness was declared hostile

He was cross examined by

examination he has deposed that the person

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma