Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi): A Case that inspired the movie No One Killed Jessica

Prachiti Suresh Shinde, studies in TYBLS at Thakur Ramnarayan College of Law. She believes that every aspect of life could be made creative just with your art of writing.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. There was a party being held in Qutub Colonnade at the restaurant known as Once upon a time aka Tamarind café on the night of 29th to 30th April 1999.
2. The Bartenders in charge were Jessica Lal (deceased) and Shyan Munshi (PW-2). Around 2 am, Manu and his friends arrived and asked for drinks.
3. The bartender declined to serve alcohol because the party had ended, Jessica and Malini also tried to make them understand that they didn’t have any liquor.
4. As Jessica refused to serve the booze, he pulled out a 22 calibre” P. Berretta pistol and fired one at the roof and another at Jessica Lal, she passed out due to that.
5. Beena Ramani who was also present at the crime scene questioned Manu as to why he fired the gun on Jessica as well as asked him to surrender his gun. But Manu and his friends fled from the crime scene.
6. Jessica Lal was taken to Apollo Hospital where she was declared dead early morning on 30th April 1999
7. At 4 am, an FIR[i] was registered at the Mehrauli Police station. A post-mortem was conducted on the same date of death in AIIMS at around 11:30 am. At night about 2 am on 30th April and 1st May 1999, the police invaded the farmhouse of the appellant and seized a photograph of the appellant.
8. The Noida Police station (sector 24) found the black Tata Safari which was seized the next day. Tony Gill and Alok Khanna were taken under custody on 5th May 1999 at 2:30 am and based on the statement the involvement of Manu was confirmed.
9. A charge sheet was registered against 10 people on 3rd August 1999. On 23rd November 2000, Sections 302, 201 r/w 120B IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act were imposed on Manu Sharma and the accused Amardeep Singh Gill was imposed with Section 120 r/w 201 IPC.
10. Section 120 r/w 201 IPC and Section 201 r/w 34 IPC were imposed on accused Harvinder Chopra, Vikas Gill, and Yograj Singh, and Section 120B r/w 201 IPC was imposed on accused Vikas Yadav, Tony Gill, and Alok Khanna. While Shyam was held under Section 212 of the IPC
11. Over 100 witnesses and 2 courts witnessed were summoned by the prosecution in the May 2001 trial
12. The prosecution filed an appeal[ii] in the High Court challenging the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge order of acquittal of all nine defendants including Manu on 21st February 2006.
13. On 20th December 2006, the High Court convicted the appellants and punished them. The three appellants filed separate appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the previous court’s order. The appeals were heard at the same time and were bounded by this single judgment

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Has the prosecution proved its case against the three defendants beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. Is the trial court’s judgment of acquitting the defendants sustainable?
3. Is the High Court’s order imposing a penalty in opposition to the trial court’s judgment, sustainable?

LAWS APPLIED:

1. Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
2. Section 379 in the CrPC, 1973.
3. Indian penal code sections:
   1. Section 302: Punishment for murder.
   2. Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen offender.
   3. Section 120B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy
4. Section 27 in Arms Act 1959.
5. Rule 16 of Chapter II, part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules under the Advocates Act, 1961.

JUDGEMENT:

The Apex Court approved the sentences in the Jessica Lal murder case on 19th April 2010. Court has observed that the evidence, witness testimonies, and evidence related to vehicles and cartridges have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was also analyzed that the decision of the high court was justified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted that trial by media has been a component, but it has not influenced the court's judgment.

LEVERAGE AND ATONEMENT:

During his imprisonment, there have been several instances where Manu was out on parole.

September 2009- Manu got paroled for 30 days due to his ailing mother and looking after his family business and the parole was extended for more than 30 days later.

November 2009- During his probation period, Manu was seen partying at nightclubs, and during that he was involved in a fight with the son of a high-ranked police officer. Soon after that, he was returned to Tihar jail.

25th December 2013 - 5th January 2014 – Master’s degree examination in Delhi

November 2017- there was an exemplary showcase of his conduct during jail time. He was also moved to open jail, and he was allowed to leave prison every day for work 8 am-6 pm. He also started doing various social work and established Siddharth Vashishth Charitable Trust which was managed by his family.

HELP BY MEDIA IN PREVAILING JUSTICE:

The 4th pillar of democracy has been proved more useful than the legal framework in finding out the reality behind lies, forgery, corruption, undue influence, and coercion by the accused and his family. The TV channels and Magazines started gathering every possible evidence. They also highlighted the biases in society as well as loopholes in legal frameworks. To give an example, NDTV backed their viewers to send messages to the station about their opinion about the trial court order. The public outrage was seen as they protested at the India Gate for showing their opposition to the judgment of the Trial Court. Tehelka magazine also conducted a sting operation that was beyond the force of police and judiciary.[iii] The defense counsel of Manu and other advocates in other eminent cases regarded the media's intervention as unlawful and this happened when they realized such things could affect the mind of the Judge and Jury.

BOLLYWOOD’S TRIBUTE TO JESSICA: “NO ONE KILLED JESSICA”

The release of the film “No One Killed Jessica” starring Rani Mukherjee and Vidya Balan as leads and directed by Raj Kumar Gupta has shown how there has been a power struggle and the rope has always been in the hands of elites. The film has highlighted the loopholes in the legal framework, political influence in heinous crimes, the Status of people getting the leverage in punishment, setbacks of administration and judiciary, hostile witnesses, and absence of protection has led to this grave injustice in the trial stage of Manu Sharma v. The State (NCT of Delhi).[iv] The film depicts the importance of Media Activism where there is a high difference in status between the victim and accused. It shows how the whole trial has simply become a pediment of a miscarriage of justice due to hostility and coercion of the witnesses by the accused family. It further also portrays the sting operation being held on the witnesses and swaying the public opinion against the accused and stirring the India Gate vigil and candle protest in support of Jessica. The title of the film was derived from a headline of TOI’s report on the preliminary stage of a case named No One Killed Jessica.

CONCLUSION:

Jessica’s case was a big shot case where many eminent people having political connections were involved. Jessica, a hardworking girl, would not have been killed if Siddharth aka Manu Sharma had control over his anger. He was just a fearless brat being a son of a politician. Jessica would not have gotten justice if the media wouldn’t have intervened. The media played a prominent role in Manu’s life imprisonment. The guilt in Manu Sharma’s eyes while looking at Jessica’s family has truly served justice. The Public and Media outrage has made Jessica Lal’s case an excellent example of a case study. This case has shown every aspect of reality and has proved that justice delayed is not justice denied.

REFERENCE

[i] FIR No. 287/99

[ii] Crl. Appeal No. 193 of 2006

[iii] https://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/indias-infamous-and-sensational-sting-operations-nid-155958-cid-1.html

[iv] Manu Sharma v. The State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1

DISCLAIMER: This article is an original submission of the author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our terms of use or write it down to us in case of any concern.