Jessica Lal Trial Court Judgement

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 Sharmas/o Sh. Vinod Sharmar/o H.No.229, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh

2.Vikas Yadav s/o D.P.Yadav r/o 4/16, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, UP Present address15,BR Mehta Lane, New Delhi

3.Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gills/o Sh. Shivdev Singh Gillr/o H.No.541, Sector 10, ChandigarhPresent address16/1, Second floor,Friends Colony West, New Delhi

4.Alok Khanna s/o Rajender Kumar Khannar/o H.No.D-69, Second Floor,Defence Colony, New Delhi

5.Amit Jhingan s/o Kewal Krishan Jhinganr/o B-10/7262, Vasant Kunj,New Delhi (discharged on 23/11/2000)

6.Shyam Sunder Sharmas/o Kedar Nath Sharmar/o 229, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

7.Harvinder Chopra s/o Lakhmi Chand Choprar/o 1568, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.

8.Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gills/o Harpal Singh Gillr/o Amar Filling Stationin 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 (P.O)s/o Kewal Krishan


r/o H.No.5546 Modern Complex Manimajra,ChandigarhPresent address17-15, 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, BiharPresent addressIV grade employees, SK Inter College,Garhi Chaukhandi, Distt. Gautam BudhNagar,UP

12 Raja Chopra r/o E-29-Am Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi

SC -105/2001FIR NO.: 287/99PS : MehrauliU/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


Qutub Colonnade at ''Once upon a time''

restaurant also called Tamarind Cafe a

Thursday party was going on. At Thursday

party the liquor was being served by the

bartenders namely Jessica Lal and Shyan

Munshi. At about 2am 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. The waiter did not serve him the

liquor 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 at the roof and fired

another shot at Jessica Lal which hit

her near her left eye as a result of

which she 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 at Apollo hospital.

3. Charge u/s 302/201/120B IPC and

also u/s 27 Arms Act has been framed


against accused Siddharth Vashishth @

Mannu Sharma. Charge u/s 120B/201 IPC has

been framed against accused Vikas Yadav,

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok

Khanna. Charge u/s 212 IPC has been

framed against the accused Harvinder

Chopra, Raja Chopra, Vikas Gill @ Ruby

Gill and Yograj Singh. Charge u/s 201/212

IPC has been framed against accused Shyam

Sunder Sharma. Charges were 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 has

deposed before the court that he 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 Lal (since deceased)

and Shyan Munshi 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


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. (Witness has correctly

identified both the accused persons as

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill.) He has

further deposed that accused Tony Gill had

come with 2/3 friends. (witness has

identified accused Alok Khanna another

accused) All of them went to Tamarind

cafe. At that time bar 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


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. Police showed him

photographs of 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. The

liquor was being served in 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


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 and she fell down. That

gentleman was wearing light coloured

clothes. This witness was declared hostile

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

ld. Special 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 T-

shirt 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


eye witness, but he has also turned

hostile. He has deposed before the court

that he had been working at Qutub

Colonnade as an electrician. 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.


9. PW5 Shri Parikshat Sagar has

deposed that on the date of incident he

was present at the party and had gone

there with Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony

Gill. He had 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 Ms. Malini Ramani has

deposed before the court that on 29th

April, 1999 there was party at Qutub

Colonnade. It was Thursday. It was a

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 were also there. She went

behind food 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


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 T-

shirt 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 the person who had

asked for drinks as accused Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma).

11. PW7 Shri Naveen Chopra is the

owner of gun shop from where accused

Sidharth Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma had

purchased 25 rounds of .22bore on 4/2/99


against license.

12. PW8 Sardar Gurnam Singh is a

formal witness.

13. PW9 is Dr. R.K.Sharma who has

conducted post mortem on the 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 and injury no.3 was sufficient to

cause death, in the ordinary course of

nature.

14. PW10 Dr. Jasvinder Singh is the

Doctor posted at Ashlok hospital who has

taken injured Jessica Lal to Apollo

hospital on the asking of Dr. Ashok

Chopra, owner of Ashlok hospital as there

was no arrangement for neuro surgery in

Aaslok hospital.

15. PW11 ASI Veer Singh is a

formal witness.

16. PW 12 HC Santosh is a formal

witness.

17. PW13 ASI Kartar Singh is a

formal witness.

18. PW 14 Shri Surinder Singh is a


formal witness.

19. PW15 Sumitabh Bhatnagar was the

Manager in Hindustan Coca Cola Breweries

Limited. He has identified accused


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 Singh is a formal

witness.

23. PW19 Shri Andleep Sehgal has

deposed that he had attended the Thursday

party on 29th April, 1999 along with his

wife. He has further deposed that he

knows 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


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 party was over she walked

towards restaurant and met Malini her

daughter. She went into the restaurant and

saw a 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. Then Shyan Munshi

came with another person. Shyan Munshi

told her that Jessica had been shot. The

companion of Shyan was wearing white T-

shirt. 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 has also identified accused

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill, Alok

Khanna and Vikas Yadav to be present with

accused Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu Sharma


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 a

formal witness.

27. PW23 Shri Rouble Dunglay is a

formal witness.

28. PW24 George Mailhot is the

husband of Ms. Beena Ramani. He has

deposed that the party on 29th April 1999

was organized as farewell party for him

as he was going for a world trip. The

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 about

20 feet away from the door of the

restaurant. He heard two pop shots like

balloon and within a few second Shyan

Munshi came running and told him that

someone had fired a shot at Jessica. He

went to the restaurant and saw Ms. Bina


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 Kumar is a formal

witness.

30. PW26 Balbir Singh is a formal

witness.

31. PW 27 Pratap Malik is a formal

witness.

32. PW28 Ramesh Chander is a formal

witness.

33. PW29 Ms. Sahana Mukherjee is a

formal witness.


34. PW30 Ct. Sharvan Kumar is a

formal witness.

36. PW31 Shri Narain is a 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 Raj is a

formal witness.

42. PW 38 Shri A. Hassan is a

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


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. PW46 Madan Kumar is the waiter

at 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, lying on the floor. Some guests,

Beena Ramani, Jitender Raj were also

present there. 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 the car and reached Aashlok

hospital.


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 is a formal witness.

57. PW53 Abhijeet Ghosal is a

formal witness.

58. PW54 Varun Shah is a formal

witness.

59. PW55 Mukesh Saini is a formal

witness.

60. PW56 Chetan Nanda is a formal

witness.

61. PW57 Ashok Dutt is a formal

witness.

62. PW58 S. Jaswinder Singh is a

formal witness.

63. PW59 Inderjeet Bakshi is a

formal witness.


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. The photographs of

entry and exit of bullet hole of the

ceiling of the restaurant are Ex.PW63/5

and PW63/6.

68. PW64 Ravinder Singh Gill is a

formal witness.

69. PW65 Kulvinder Singh is a

formal witness.

70. PW66 Major A.R Satish (retired)


71. PW67 Niranjan Ram is a formal

witness.

72. PW68 Sh. Mangal Singh is a

formal witness.


73. PW69 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Atri is a

formal witness.

74. PW70 Sh. Rohit Bal has deposed

that he is a Fashion Designer by

profession. 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. within about 7,8 or 9 minutes

of his 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 Lal very well

before the incident. He saw that soon

after Malini, Beena Ramani came from the

inner section of the restaurant. Beena

Ramani was running in the courtyard area


shouting ''catch that man, catch that man,

stop him'' or something like that pointing

towards the Exit. He rushed inside to

the place from where Malini and Beena

Ramani had come out running. He saw

Jessica Lal lying on the floor. He rang

from his mobile at No.100. His mobile No.

was 9811020955. Then he called his

personal doctor, Dr. Alok Chopra. Dr.

Alok Chopra advised to send the injured to

the hospital immediately. Then they went

to Ashlok Hospital. From Ashlok hospital,

they were sent to Apollo hospital.

75. PW71 Sh. Harminder Singh is a

formal witness.

76. PW72 Lal Singh is a formal

witness.

77. PW73 Ms. Sabrina Lal is a

formal witness.

78. PW74 Ct. Satish Kumar is a

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. PW77 Gajender Singh is a formal

witness.


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 and has proved

the proceedings Ex.PW79/B and Ex.PW79/C

respectively. He has also proved TIP

proceedings in respect of accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma as

Ex.PW79/G.

84. PW80 ASI Nirbhay Singh is a

formal witness.

85. PW81 Insp. S.S. Gill is a

formal witness.

86. PW82 SI K.P.Malik is a formal

witness.

87. PW83 HC Devi Singh is a formal

witness.

88. PW84 HC Mukesh Singh is a

formal witness.

89. PW85 SI Pankaj Malik is a formal

witness.

90. PW86 Jagan Nath Jha is a formal

witness.

91. PW87 Insp. Raman Lamba is a

formal witness.


92. PW88 Shri O.S. Srivastava Senior

Scientific Officer is a formal witness.

93. PW89 Dr. G.D. Gupta Principal

Scientific Officer (Biology) is a formal

witness.

94. PW90 Sh. C.K.Jain Senior

Scientific Officer is a formal witness.

95. PW91 SI B.D.Dubey 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 a

formal witness.

102. PW98 Babu Lal is a formal

witness.

102. PW99 is Dr. Deepak Vats, who

has brought the file regarding the

patient Jessica Lal at Apollo hospital.


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 station for registration of the

case. On inspection he found two empty

cartridge cases which he took into

possession. He 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 colour Tata Safari has been

lifted from the spot and the same is

registered in the name of Picadilly Agro

Industries and accused Sidhartha Vashisht


@ 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 arrested accused

Tony Gill and 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 refused to

participate in the TIP. Accused Amit

Jhingan was also arrested. Accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma also

refused to participate in the TIP and 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 with the transcript and then

seized and sealed the same in his

presence. Accused Shyam Sunder Sharma was

also arrested. SHO interrogated the

accused Vikas Gill and Harvinder Chopra

and recorded their disclosure statements.

SHO also handed over accused Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and accused Vikas


Gill for getting a petrol pump pointed out

by them. Accused persons pointed out a

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


original FIR register from PS Mehrauli

containing FIR No.288/99. 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-U-

make 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


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-W-

6535 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


used by the accused persons during the

crime was Tata Sierra bearing number HR-

26-H-4348 was alloted to 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. He has further submitted that

at the relevant time accused Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill was having mobile

phone number 9811100237 while accused Alok

Khanna was having mobile phone number

9811068169. These mobile phones were

provided by their employers i.e. Hindustan

Cocacola Company to them at the relevant

time. He has further submitted that

telephone number 3782072 was installed at

BR Mehta lane where Sh. D.P. Yadav, who is

father of accused Vikas Yadav was

residing. Accused Vikas Yadav 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-


6535 which was registered in the name of

M/s Picadilly Agro Industries India

limited which is a sugar mill in Karnal

and which was being used by accused

Sidhartha Vashisht, Shyam Sunder 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 telephone number

47651,52,53 which were installed at

Karnal at the time of occurrence. He has

further submitted that vehicle number DL-

3C-J-5241 was also used by the accused

persons for hiding the accused Sidhartha

Vashisht & Others who have committed the

murder in this case. This vehicle was

white Mahindra Ford vehicle and it 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


the Authorities. Ld. Special PP has

further submitted that on Thursday private

party used to be arranged in this Tamarind

court cafe. On the date of occurrence

i.e. On 29/4/99 a Thursday party was

going on at the said Restaurant where

liquor was being served by the deceased

Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi who were

working as bartenders.

112. On the fateful day i.e. on the

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

deceased Jessica Lal was wearing Blue

denim short and half sleeves white shirt

as deposed by PW29 Shahana Mukherjee. On

the date of occurrence the accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma along

with other co-accused persons Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill, Alok Khanna and

Vikas Yadav came to the Tamarind Court

cafe. Accused 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


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 which she fell down. Shyan

Munshi PW2 came running to PW6 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


the body of Jessica Lal at AIIMS hospital

by Dr. R.K.Sharma PW9.

PW9 is Dr. R.K.Sharma who has

conducted post mortem on the 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 injury no.3 was sufficient to

cause death, in the ordinary course of

nature.

111. It is further proved on record

by the prosecution that Jessica Lal was

fired upon from a pistol by a 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.


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 @


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 Vikas Yadav at

the spot has been proved on record by the

prosecution witnesses examined in this

case. PW2 Shyan Munshi has been declared

hostile as he did not identify accused

Sidhartha Vasishst @ 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 Deepak Bhojwani has also

stated that he had not seen 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 time of occurrence.

116. He has further submitted that it

has been proved on record beyond


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 accused persons

Sidhartha Vashisht, Amardeep Singh Gill @

Tony Gill, Alok 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 court cafe from a

pistol which resulted into her death. 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 person namely Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma who 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 and she felt that accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma must

have fired a shot at Jessica Lal so the


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 has fired a shot at

Jessica Lal on the date of occurrence.

She has also deposed before the court that

other accused persons along with the


were 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 PW24 George

Mailhott has also deposed that 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


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 beside Sidhartha Vashisht @ 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.


submitted that black Tata Safari bearing

no.CH-01-W-6535 was used by accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma along

with other accused persons namely Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna for

coming to Tamarind Cafe, the place of

occurrence on the fateful day. He has

further submitted that it has come in the


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 occurrence and ran away from

there. He has further 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 persons. He has further

submitted that accused Alok Khanna,

Amardeep Singh Gill @ 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


further submitted that as per disclosure

statement of accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma he handed over the pistol

used in the commission of 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.


submitted that all the accused 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 Gill in which it is

shown that several telephone calls were

made from this number. Similarly it is

proved by PW16 Raj Narain, Accounts

Officer MTNL that STD calls have been

made from telephone number 3782072 which

was installed in the name of Sh. D.P.Yadav

father of accused Vikas Yadav for the

period 25/4/99 to 1/5/99 for the calls

made to Chandigarh at the telephone number

of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.



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.


submitted that CW1 Dr. Ravel Singh has

translated the conversation between Mr.

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''.


submitted that this case was given wide

publicity in the media. The court should

take judicial notice of the report

appearing about this case in the newspaper

which have been placed on record by

Special PP.


submitted that remaining accused persons


Shyam Sunder Sharma, Harvinder Chopra,

Raja Chopra, Vikas Gill, Yograj Singh are

also liable to be convicted for

harbouring the accused Sidhartha Vashisht

@ Mannu Sharma after the commission of

crime.


submitted that the Black Tata Safari was

registered in the name of Picadilly Agro

Industries where Harvinder Chopra was

working as Executive Director and the

Black Tata Safari was assigned to

Harvinder Chopra by the company.


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 further submitted that accused

Yograj Singh had harboured accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and he

is liable to be convicted u/s 212 IPC.


submitted that accused Harvinder Chopra,

Yograj Singh, Shyam Sunder Sharma should

be convicted u/s 212 of IPC for harbouring



and for giving food, shelter and

conveyance to accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma.


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 addresses of accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. On

5/5/99 he again went to Picadilly hotel

Chandigarh but could not locate accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

However, on 6/5/99 accused Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma appeared before

the police at Patiala Tourist Bunglow at

Chandigarh and he arrested the accused

and seized his arms 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


arrested accused Alok Khanna and Amardeep

Singh 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.


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 he did not know the

whereabouts of his son Vikas 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 in the court of Sh.

V.K.Khanna ld. MM and the ld. 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


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 had also absconded

immediately after the occurrence and an

inference may be drawn against the

accused that he absconded after the

commission of crime and he should be

convicted on this ground.


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.


submitted that accused Vikas Yadav,


Khanna may be convicted u/s 120B/201 of


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 all harboured the accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma by

giving him 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, oralcircumstantial, dependsconsiderably on a judicialevaluation of the totality, notisolated scrutiny. While it isnecessary that proof beyondreasonable doubt should beadduced in all criminal cases,it is not necessary that itshould be perfect. If a case isproved too perfectly, it is


argued that it is artificial; if acase has some flaws,inevitable because humanbeings are prone to err, it isargued that it is too imperfect.One wonders whether in themeticulous hypersensitivity toeliminate a rare innocent frombeing punished many guiltymen must be callously allowedto escape. Proof beyondreasonable doubt is aguideline, not a fetish andguilty man cannot get awaywith it because truth sufferssome infirmity when projectedthrough human processes,Judicial quest for perfect proofoften accounts for policepresentation of fool-proofconcoction. Why fake up?Because the court asks formanufacture to make truthlook true? No, we must berealistic.''

(iii) AIR 1992 SC Page 840 in Re State of UP

Vs. Ashok Kumar, wherein it has been held as

under :-

'' The circumstance reliedupon must be found to havebeen fully established and thecumulative effect of all thefacts so established must beconsistent only with thehypothesis of guilt. But this isnot to say that the prosecutionmust meet any and everyhypothesis put forward by theaccused however far-fetched


and fanciful it might be. Nordoes it mean that prosecutionevidence must be rejected onthe slightest doubt becausethe law permits rejection if thedoubt is reasonable and nototherwise.''

(iv) AIR 1975 SC 856 in Re Ravinder Singh Vs.

State of Haryana wherein it has been held as

under :-

'' Once the evidence of awitness has been rejected bythe court it should not be madea basis for judging the veracityof other evidence by theyardstick of that unreliableevidence.''

(v) 1985 Crl. L.J. 1700 Delhi High Court in Re

Harishanker Vs. State wherein it has been held as

under:-

'' That apart, the appellantDharam Raj has failed to bringany material on the recordwhich would render hisidentification by thecomplainant in court ofdoubtful value. As stated above,he declined to participate in theidentification parade althoughhe was produced on the verynext day of his arrest and,therefore, an adverse inferencecan be ligitimately drawnagainst him''.


(v)Criminal Revision 110 of (1976) 235 Delhi in

Re Balkishan Vs. State wherein it has been held

as under :-

'' (i) Evidence Act. S.138-Construction of-witness notcross examined on positivematerial assertions affectingthe opposite party-effect of.

HELD that where cross-examination is not directedagainst the positive materialassertion affecting the oppositeparty, it would amount to theaffected party accepting thetruthfulness of that assertionunless there is some exceptionproof 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


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. Ld. Counsel for accused has

further submitted that the case of the

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


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 is opined that these two

cartridges have been fired from two

different arms so 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 on the same night

which is Ex.PW100/7. In the said

disclosure statement the names of other

accused persons had figured. Consequently

on the morning of 5/5/99 accused Alok

Khanna was arrested and he also made

disclosure statement before the police and


police also seized the Tata Sierra car

from him. For the first time the names of

accused persons were disclosed to the

police by Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok

Khanna on the night of 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


Vashisht 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 immediately after notice was

served on the father of the accused. So

the argument of the ld. Special PP that


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 failed to get

the arm recovered from him. So a 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


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. One person

had 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 the roof and another at

Jessica Lal. The theory put forward by

PW2 Shyan Munshi that two persons had

fired from two different weapons stands

corroborated from the evidence of

Ballistic Experts. 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 different weapons. The prosecution

then sent these two cartridges to FSL

Jaipur and even the Ballistic expert at

Jaipur also opined that both these

cartridge were of different size and they


were having different characteristics and

these two cartridges were fired from two

different weapons. So both the FSL

reports support the version given by PW2

Shyan Munshi 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 FSL Jaipur

Ballistic Expert report is Ex.PW95/2.


submitted that PW2 Shyan Munshi has stated

that SI Sharad Kumar had come to him with

15 photographs and he was asked to

identify the accused persons from these

photographs who had come to Tamarind Cafe

on the date of occurrence and also about

the accused who had fired a shot at

Jessica Lal but he had not identified

those photographs to be that of accused

persons as these photographs were not of

those accused persons who had come to

Tamarind Cafe, on the night of occurrence.


submitted that PW2 Shyan Munshi has stated

that he can neither speak Hindi nor he

knows how to write in Hindi. He had made


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 his statement in good faith.

PW2 Shyan Munshi has stated before the

court that he and Jessica Lal were not

serving liquor at the said party on

29/4/99. Even PW23 Rouble Dunglay says

that Shyan Munshi always talked to him in

English as Shyan Munshi did not know

Hindi.


further submitted that the 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 found at Tamarind Cafe

belonged to Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

Sharma. So he had sent SI Pankaj Malik to

Chandigarh on 30/4/99 to secure the Tata

Safari and to arrest accused Sidhartha


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 had taken a decision to

frame the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma in this case. Though on

30/4/99 there was no evidence available

with the police against accused Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma at all but PW101

Insp. Surender Kumar Sharma had been

instructed by senior police officers to

frame the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma in this case which is clear

from his evidence before the court.


submitted that the presence of PW30 Delhi

Home Guard Sharwan Kumar at the spot on

the night of 29-30/4/99 is doubtful

because he never went with the SHO PW101

Insp. Surinder Kumar Sharma. It is

recorded in DD no.40A 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


away from the police station. So as per

DD no.40A this witness PW30 Delhi Home

Guard Sharwan Kumar left the 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


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.


further submitted that there are 5

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. In his

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC 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


his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. He

has deposed for the first time before the

court about these facts which is an

improvement. He 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. Qutub Colonnade nor he says

about the removal of Black Tata Safari

from the spot by the accused. He has

stated for the first time in the court

which is an improvement made by him.

Similarly PW100 SI Sunil 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 by the

accused persons from the spot 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


court about these facts which is an

improvement. He 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 an improvement made by the

witness. Similarly PW100 has deposed

before the court that when he went to the

spot he asked SI Sharad Kumar about the

removal of Black Tata Safari by the

accused persons from the spot 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 it shows that neither

the Black Tata Safari was present at the

spot nor the same was removed by the

accused persons as alleged. 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


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 Tata Safari even in the case

diary as alleged by SI Sunil Kumar so

there was no question of presence of Black

Tata Safari at the spot or its removal by

the accused persons.


Counsel for the accused that PW30 Delhi

Home Guard Sharwan Kumar has deposed

before the court that he had given the

information about the presence of Black

Tata Safari and its removal by accused

persons to one Head Constable 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.



further submitted that PW101 Insp.

Surender Sharma has deposed 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.


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 and he helped Bina Ramani in

removing the injured Jessica Lal to the

Ashlok hospital. He came back from the

Ashlok hospital to Qutub Colonnade 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 Safari by two

persons from the spot.



further submitted that PW30 Delhi 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 a constable as he was not

Matriculate and for these two reasons he

was not eligible to be appointed as a

constable.


further submitted that for becoming a

constable one should be minimum

Matriculate and his age should be between

18 to 21 years. He has also stated in

cross examination 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


Delhi police.


further submitted that in view of the

foregoing discussions it has become

evident that the story of presence of

Black Tata Safari at the spot was

introduced by the police and the story of

removal of Black Tata Safari by the

accused persons has also been introduced

by the police in order to falsely

implicate the accused persons in this

case.


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 a 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 29/4/99 there was no police

official available on duty at Qutub

Colonnade and there was only guard of the

restaurant who was on duty at the spot.



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. He went

there at about 6.30pm and 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. Whereas PW 101 Insp.

Surender Sharma has deposed before the

court that on 2.5.99 he came to know from

senior police officers that Black


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 the Judicial

Magistrate Ghaziabad 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 alongwith any broken pieces

of glass 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 denied about handing

over of the broken pieces of glass to

police of PS Mehrauli. He has

categorically stated that no pieces of

glass were recovered from Black 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. Surender Sharma before the

Magistrate Gaziabad and in that

application he has only made request to


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. Since the Judicial

Magistrate at 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 the pieces of glass are

mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW74/A

vide which articles were recovered and

seized by SI BD Dubey from the Tata

Safari. So this story of taking into

possession broken pieces of glass by Insp.


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.


further submitted that PW100 SI Sunil

Kumar had conducted inquest

proceedings on 30/4/1999 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 reached the spot at about

4.30am about the removal of Black Tata

Safari from the spot. He has further

deposed that when he 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


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.


stated that prosecution has also failed to

prove that accused Mannu Sharma and other

accused persons came to the spot in Black


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 deposed before the court that

Black Tata Safari belongs to M/s

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. PW101 Insp.

Surender Sharma has admitted in the cross

examination that he did not record

statement of any witness to 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 to prove

that accused Mannu Sharma 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.


further submitted that prosecution has


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 on record that this mobile

phone belongs to Mannu Sharma nor any

witness has been produced to show 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 recovered from accused Mannu

Sharma. 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 was using the said mobile

phone for contacting the other accused

persons from this mobile phone.

Prosecution has failed to connect the

mobile phone no.9811096893 with the

accused Mannu Sharma.

155. The prosecution has examined PW1


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 Colonnade. The list

submitted by him to the police is

Ex.PW24/A. In the said list Ex.PW24/A the

name of Deepak Bhojwani does not find

mention at all. 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 with sisters and

parents of Jessica Lal 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 there. It shows that PW1

Deepak 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 from Ashlok hospital he went to


Apollo hospital. At Apollo hospital

he met the police and he gave the

description of the person who was involved

in the commission of crime to the police.

He has further deposed that after the

Doctor declared Jessica Lal as 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 the Apollo hospital at about

7am.PW 78 SI Sharad Kumar has 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 met

police at Ashlok hospital. 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


police at Apollo hospital and had told the

police about the facts of the case and

about the description of the accused

persons. Since the police had reached

Apollo hospital only after 7am so the

question of meeting Deepak Bhojwani with

the police at the hospital is out of

question and the testimony of Deepak

Bhojwani seems to be unreliable and

untrustworthy. PW92 ACP Durga Prasad has

also deposed before the court that name of

Deepak Bhojwani was not found in the list

Ex.PW24/A but it occurred during

interrogation of 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 falsely implicate the accused

persons. 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 Bhojwani who was later on

introduced as a witness in this case.


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 the newspaper is

meaningless. The police has 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 cannot be

believed to be trustworthy. 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. A leading question was

put to PW1 by Special PP if he can

identify 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 u/s 161 Cr.PC So the

evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy and

same is liable to be rejected.



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. This is no

identification in the eyes of law. In

the cross examination she has 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. She has further stated that

her statements were recorded on several

dates 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 there is no

other statement on record.



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 does not satisfy her that

Sidhartha Vashisht is the same 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


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.


further submitted that PW24 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 and he saw Beena Ramani

chasing a person inside the restaurant.

He, thereafter went to the gate outside to

look for the police.


submitted that accused George Mailhott

, Beena Ramani and Malini Ramani were also

booked by the prosecution under the

Excise Act and a deal was struck between

the prosecution and the accused persons

that if they help them in the

investigation then the prosecution will

help them in getting a lenient view in the

Excise Act case against them. Examination

in chief of PW24 was started on

17/10/2001 and was concluded on

18/10/2001. Ld. SPP had filed an

application for early hearing and for pre-

poning the Excise Act case filed by them


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 the case was again

adjourned to 12/12/2001. On 12/12/2001

all the accused persons namely George

Mailhot, Malini Ramani and Bina Ramani

pleaded guilty and they were let off after

imposing a fine of Rs.200/- each on these

accused persons. On account of this deal

between accused persons and prosecution

all the three witnesses have deposed in

favour of the prosecution against the

accused persons and 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.


submitted that PW 24 George Mailhott was

not present at the time of this incident

and he has been examined by the

prosecution as a false 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


restaurant Qutub Colonnade after Jessica

Lal had been removed to the hospital. PW

46 Madan Kumar who was waiter in the

restaurant has 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.


Counsel for the accused that the

cartridges recovered from 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 has proved that accused

Sidhartha 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 which are foreign made. The

cartridges which were used in the

commission of crime were manufactured by


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 produced before the police and Mr.

Ghai even signed the arrest memo of

accused Sidhartha Vashisht which is

Ex,.PW80/A but the memo with regard to

seizure of arms licence has not been

signed by Mr.Ghai. PW87 has stated that


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.


further submitted that arms licence which

was seized by Insp. Raman Lamba had been

deposited 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 that Insp. Raman Lamba had

deposited with him on 6/5/99 only one

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


by Insp. Raman Lamba on 6/5/99.


Counsel for the accused that police has

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt and the accused persons. The

accused persons are liable to be

acquitted.


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 in the commission of crime.

Accused Ravinder Sudan @ Titu told him

that the said pistol was with Shyam Sunder

Sharma but in cross examination this

witness has stated that he had not

verified as to whether the telephone

no.001-526-7751-236 was installed in the

name of Ravinder Sudan at USA or not. Nor

he had made enquiry about the other

telephone number bearing no.001-7184768403

about its ownership and about its


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. So it is not

proved on record that person called in

America was actually Ravinder Sudan or

not. PW57 Ashok Dutt who had dialed the

telephone at America has also turned

hostile and has stated that he never

dialed any telephone at America and he had

not talked with any Ravinder Sudan @ Titu.


Counsel for the accused that there is not

even an iota of evidence against the

accused persons which can connect them

with the commission of crime. So the

accused persons are, therefore, liable to

be acquitted.



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 after the

commission of offence from the

jurisdiction of police. 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. Accused Vikas

Yadav is one of the 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


bail granted to accused Vikas Yadav on

7/7/99. On 7/7/99 itself accused Vikas

Yadav surrendered before court of Ld. MM

New Delhi. Thereafter 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. Ld. Counsel for accused Vikas

Yadav has further submitted that PW20

Beena Ramani has deposed before the court

that she thinks accused Amardeep Singh

Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were

also present along with accused Sidhartha

Vashisht in the party on the night of

incident at the time of commission of

offence. But she is not sure about the


presence of all these three accused

persons. She has further deposed in the

cross examination that she had seen the

photographs of all the three accused

persons in the newspaper and in the

Television. Ld. 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 2 and a half years. This

identification by PW20 of the 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.


Yadav has further submitted that PW30

Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar has made

lot of improvements in his statement made

before the court.

170. Ld. Counsel has drawn my

attention towards the statement of PW30


Sharwan Kumar has deposed before the court

that he had told before the police that 3-

4 vehicles were standing on one side of

the road while one vehicle Black Tata

Safari was standing separately. This

portion was got confronted with his

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it was

not so recorded.

171. PW30 has further deposed

before the court that he had checked up

all the vehicles and they were found

locked, This portion was also got

confronted with his statement u/s 161

Cr.PC wherein it was not so recorded.

172. PW30 has further deposed before

the court that there was light at the

place where black Tata Safari was parked,

this portion was got confronted with his


not so recorded.


the court that he had told the police that

he had joined the SHO at the gate of

police station, this portion was got




the court that he has told the police that


he was instructed by SHO that nobody

should remove any vehicle from 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 spot, this portion was got




the court that he had stated before the

police that vehicle Tata Siera came slowly

and took a U-turn. This portion was got





Tata Safari was attempted to be opened

with a key, this portion was got


Cr.PC wherein the word key was not

recorded.


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


forcibly and entered the vehicle,this



not so recorded.



that the photographs of accused Vikas

Yadav and other accused persons had

appeared in print media as well as visual

media. This portion was got confronted

with his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

it was not so recorded.



that he does not know how many police

officers were present inside Qutub

Colonnade at that time, this portion was

got confronted with his statement u/s 161




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 from which police station he had

come, this portion was got confronted

with his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein


it was not so recorded.



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 of

Black Tata Safari to the police. This

danda was a very important piece of

evidence and IO should have seized the

same and sent it to CFSL to prove that

this danda was used in striking on the

window pane of Black Tata Safari, this


statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it was not

so recorded.



when he was appointed as a constable in

the Delhi police no advertisement had

appeared in any newspaper. He has also

admitted that he was not 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.



Yadav has further submitted that TIP of

accused Vikas Yadav was not got conducted

by the prosecution. However PW30 Home

guard Sharwan Kumar has submitted that on

24/5/99 he had picked up the photographs

of accused Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh

Gill and Alok Khanna from the photographs

shown to him by the IO. This is no

identification in the eyes of law.


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 examination of the same.

Monogram S2 and S1 are of the same

company. He has not examined the vehicle

from where the glass pieces have been

recovered, he cannot say from 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.


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


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 have been the best evidence

available with the police to fix the

accused persons in this case but they

deliberately did not lift the chance

prints from the vehicle because they knew

that this vehicle was not used by the

accused persons in the commission of

offence.

187. Counsel for accused Vikas Yadav

has further submitted that prosecution

has examined PW72 on the point of

absconsion of accused Vikas Yadav from his

house but PW72 Lal Singh who is Deputy

Manager in Sariska Palace hotel has

categorically stated that accused Vikas

Yadav had never stayed in Sariska Palace

hotel on 9th and 10th May 1999. Similarly

PW77 Gajender Singh has also deposed

before the court that Vikas Yadav had

never stayed in Sariska Palace Hotel. Both

these witnesses have turned hostile and

have not supported the case of

prosecution. Similarly PW54 Varun Shah


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.


submitted that PW81 Insp.SS Gill who is

part IO in this case has only deposed

against the accused Vikas Yadav that he

stayed at Shakti Tourist complex on

10/5/99 but he was not able to collect any

cogent evidence in this regard.


submitted that PW100 SI Sunil Kumar has

deposed that he had not put any barricade

near the Qutub Colonnade so that the

vehicle could be checked and stopped while

leaving Qutub Colonnade. He has also

stated that accused Vikas Yadav was

interrogated at PS Mehrauli and he had not

been taken to any interrogation center at

Anti terrorist center at Lodhi Colony

whereas PW101 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


place of interrogation of the accused

Vikas Yadav.


further submitted that PW101 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.


further submitted that PW101 Surender

Kumar Sharma claims that he had sent a

message about Black Tata Safari having

been taken away by two persons to PCR

through Duty officer but no such message

has been sent to the PCR as is apparent

from the evidence.

192. Ld counsel for accused has

further submitted that PW101 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 a 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


not been proved by any person in whose

handwriting the entry was made and in

which DD register it was made.


further submitted that PW101 has admitted

that he did not record statement of any

witness to the effect as to who had

brought Black Tata Safari to the Qutub

Colonnade. So it has not been proved on

record that accused persons had brought

Black Tata Safari at Qutub Colonnade


further submitted that PW13 ASI 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 of window pane and

regarding removal of Black Tata Safari


have been introduced by the IO in order to

falsely implicate the accused persons in

this case.

195. Ld counsel for accused Raja

Chopra has submitted that charge u/s 212

IPC for harbouring the accused and for

providing the vehicle to the accused

persons was framed 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 pump. So the charge against

the accused Raja Chopra has not been

proved by the prosecution.

196. Ld. counsel for accused Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna has

submitted that they were working as

Manager at Cocacola factory at the

relevant time. The only witness who could


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.


further submitted that accused Alok Khanna

and accused Sidhartha Vashisht were not

even known to each other prior to the date

of occurrence. He has been implicated in

this case only because he was working

along with accused Amardeep Singh Gill as

Manager at Coca Cola company.


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 occurrence. In his cross

examination he states that he does not

remember if he had told the police that he

would be able to identify the person who

had accompanied Tony Gill at the spot.

This portion of the statement was got


Cr.PC wherein it was not so recorded. So

PW1 has made statement in the court by


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.


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. Ld. counsel for accused has

further submitted that even if it 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 is

shown to have been performed by accused

Alok Khanna in the commission of offence

nor any charge has been framed in this

regard against the accused.



further submitted that conduct of the

accused Alok Khanna also shows that

accused had not run away from the

jurisdiction of police. When 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.


further submitted that 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. He has

been introduced as a witness by the

prosecution because his name 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


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 stated

in their statements that PW1 was also

present at the party although he was

known to them.


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 at Qutub Colonnade and that

Jessica Lal was helping her daughter

Malini Ramani on that night in the party.


further submitted that PW George Mailhott

has stated that he cannot identify

Sardarjee who came along with accused

persons at Qutub Colonnade because he had


seen him only for a short duration. Even

if Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khanna

were 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

commission of crime in any manner.


further submitted 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 behind Mannu Sharma told

him something. 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 whom Tony Gill and Mannu

Sharma had gone, this portion of the

statement 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 does not

remember if he had told the police that he

will be able to identify those persons who

were accompanying Mannu Sharma. This



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 omissions and

contradictions in his statement made

before the court. Statement of this

witness may be rejected outright.



Guard Sharwan Kumar is also a highly

interested witness. 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 or features of that

sardar. 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


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.


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 for accused has


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 side, this portion was got



Cr.PC wherein it does not find mention

there.



Sharwan Kumar has stated before the court

that there was light at the place where

vehicle was parked, this portion was got


Cr.PC wherein it was not so mentioned

there.


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.




that he was told by the SHO to remain at

the spot when the SHO left the spot, this



not so mentioned there.




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


there.




that Black Tata Safari was attempted to be

opened with a key, this portion was


Cr.PC where the word key was not

mentioned there.




that he has started his duty on the side

of Black Tata Safari, this portion was got



there.




that he had checked all the cars which

were parked there and all the cars were


locked, this portion was confronted with

his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC where it was

not so mentioned there.


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.


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 of MM seeking 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


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. The ld. MM also observed in the

order that the accused persons may be

required for filing an additional

chargesheet against them in the present

murder case.


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.



submitted that a 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 a very handsome reward

as he was 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.


submitted that accused Alok Khanna has

examined R.K.Khanna, who is father of

accused Alok Khanna as DW1, who 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 to office. The police took away

photographs of Alok Khanna and Tony Gill

from their album. After sometime Alok

Khanna came, he was also taken away by the


police with them with the assurance that

they will make some inquiries and then he

will be let off. The evidence of this

witness finds corroboration from the

evidence of 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.


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 of PS Mehrauli.

The other witnesses have also supported

this version of PW30. In the lockup they

were shown to all the witnesses.


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.


Accused are remanded to JC in view of the TIP to be conducted against them.''

This order does not reflect

that accused were produced in muffled

faces. 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.


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 and Jamatalashi memo

Ex.PW100/8 and 100/9 of Alok Khanna and

Ex.PW 100/5 and 100/26 of Amardeep Singh

Gill respectively.


submitted that an application was moved by

the counsel for accused on 6/5/99

Ex.PW101/X stating therein that


photographs of the accused persons have

been taken away by the police from their

house on 5/5/99. PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has

also admitted that photographs of the

accused persons involved in 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 she was shown

photographs of the culprits. 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.


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 persons. What actually

transpired on mobile phones and what

conversation took place between the


accused persons has not been filed by the

police on record.

228. Ld. Counsel for accused Shyam

Sunder Sharma has submitted that

prosecution has examined five witnesses

namely PW56 Chetan Nanda, PW57 Ashok Dutt,

PW60 Baldev Singh, PW61 Ishdeep and PW68

Mangal Singh who were witnesses with

regard to involvement of accused Shyam

Sunder Sharma in this case. All these

witnesses have turned hostile and have not

uttered a single word against Shyam Sunder

Sharma implicating him in the commission

of crime. Therefore, case against the

accused Shyam Sunder Sharma for destroying

the evidence and for harbouring the

accused does not stand proved. He is

therefore, liable to be acquitted.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that all the witnesses who have

been produced by the prosecution against

accused Yograj Singh, Vikas Gill,

Harwinder Chopra and Raja Chopra have

turned hostile. Witnesses PW52 Chander

Prakash Chabra, PW 64 Ravinder Singh Gill,

PW65 Kulwinder Singh, PW69 Rakesh Kumar

Atri and PW71 Harminder Singh have turned


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 have also turned

hostile. There is not even an iota of

evidence to implicate these accused with

the commission of crime.

Ld. Counsel for the accused has reliedupon the following judgments:-

(i) 1987(1) Crimes page 198 Orissa In ReSubas @ Sabakhia Bhoi and others Vs. State.

''The third circumstancerelied upon by theprosecution is the fact thatappellants Subas andDukhishyam were notavailable in their housesuntil their arrest on 2.2.1983and appellant Udia Bhoicould not be traced until27/4/83. The fact that theappellants were not presentfor some time after theoccurrence in their respectivehouses cannot by itself leadto the irresistible conclusionthat they had abscondedwith a view to shieldthemselves from the arms oflaw. Without proof ofanything more such conductis quite compatible withinnocence as well.''


(ii) II (1997) CCR 191 Bombay High Court inRe State of Maharashtra Vs. HarishchandraTukaram Awatade wherein it has been held asunder :-

''(v)Evidence Act, 1872 -Section 3-Hostile witness-Law-Testimony of hostilewitness - Not to be rejectedaltogether - Extent towhich corroborated byreliable witness -Acceptable.''

(iii) 2001 Crl.LJ 487, SC in Re Gura Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan wherein it has been held asunder :-

(A) Evidence Act (1 of1872) S.154 - Hostilewitness - Testimony of-Not to be excludedentirely or renderedunworthy ofconsideration.''

(iv) AIR 2005 SC 2804 In Re Mukhtiar AhmedAnsari Vs. State of Delhi, wherein it has beenheld as under:-

'' (D) Evidence Act (1 of1872), S.154-Hostilewitness - Prosecutionwitness not supportinggenesis of prosecution-Accused can rely on hisevidence''.

(V) AIR 1933 Patna 496 in Re Emperor Vs.Ardali Mian and others wherein it has been heldas under:-

(a) Criminal Trial-Identification of accusedshould be beyondreasonable doubt- The


evidence as to identificationof accused must besufficient to exclude withreasonable certainty thepossibility 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 basedon circumstances indicatingthat the prosecution case isquite likely to be true. Forbasing the conviction in a casegoverned by circumstantialevidence, the facts establishedmust rule out any likelihood ofinnocence 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.3-Circumstantial evidence- Thecircumstances formingevidence must be conclusivelyestablished and even when soestablished, they must formsuch a complete chain that itis not only consistent with theguilt but is inconsistent withany reasonable hypothesis ofinnocence.(B) Evidence Act(1872), S.8-Subsequent conduct of accused- Absconding by itself is notconclusive either of guilt or ofguilty conscience.''.

(viii) 2002 (2) JCC SC 1304 in Re ToranSingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it


has been held as under:-

''... Sole eye witness did not try tosave his father and ran to his villagewithout raising any hue and cry -Delay in lodging complaint -Whether trial Court and High Courtrightly convicted the appellant -Held (No) - Held : that son ofdeceased is an interested witnessand his evidence ought to have beenscrutinized with greater care andcaution - Held : that conduct ofonly eye witness is highly unnaturaland improbable - Held : that verypresence of eye witness at the placeand time of occurrence itselfdoubtful and incredible - Appellantacquittal.''

(ix) 41(1990) DLT (SN) 32 Delhi in Re RajinderParshad & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Admn wherein ithas been held as under :-

'' Where the behaviour of thewitness is not in keeping with thenormal human conduct, histestimony as eye witness would bedoubtful.''

(x) AIR 2004 SC 4660 in Re State ofRajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh wherein it hasbeen held as under:-

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974),Ss.378, 386, 154 - Penal Code(45 of 1860) Ss.300 - Appealagainst acquittal - Veracity ofprosecution case - Presence ofprosecution witness at place ofoccurrence doubtful -Unexplained delay of one day inlodging FIR - Medical evidencetotally at variance with ocular


evidence - All these factors effectcredibility of prosecution case -Acquittal, proper.

(xi) AIR 1979 SC 1410 in Re State of

Maharashtra Vs. Annappa Bandu Kavatage

wherein it has been held as under:-

''Before a court can act oncircumstantial evidence thecircumstances proved must becomplete and of a conclusivenature so as to be fullyinconsistent with the innocence ofthe accused and are notexplainable on any otherhypothesis except the guilt of theaccused.''

(xi) AIR 1975 Crl. L.J. 870 SUPREME COURT1026 In Re Ram Kumar Pande Vs. The State ofMadhya Pradesh wherein it has been held asunder :-

'' No doubt, an FIR is a previousstatement which can, strictlyspeaking, be only used tocorroborate or contradict themaker of it. But omissions ofimportant facts, affecting theprobabilities of the facts, affectingthe probabilities of the case, arerelevant under Section 11 of theEvidence Act in judging theveracity of the prosecution case.''

(xii) 2002(4) RCR (Crl.) SC 95 in Re Balu SonbaShinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra wherein ithas been held as under:-

''B. evidence Act, Section 154...Criminal Trial... Hostile witness...Declaration of a witness to behostile does not ipso facto reject the


evidence... Portion of evidence beingadvantageous to the parties may betaken advantage of... But the Courtbefore whom such a reliance isplaced shall have to be extremelycautious and circumspect in suchacceptance.

C. Indian Penal Code, Section 302...Murder... Case based oncircumstantial evidence... Accusedis entitled to benefit of doubt ifchain is snapped.

D. Indian Penal Code, Section302... circumstantial evidence...Law summed up :-

1. There must be a chain ofevidence so far complete as notto leave any reasonable groundfor a conclusion consistentwith the innocence of theaccused and it must be suchas to show that within allhuman probability the actmust have been done by theaccused.

2. Circumstantial evidence can bereasonably made the basis ofan accused person's convictionif it is of such a character thatit it wholly inconsistent withthe innocence of the accusedand is consistent only with hisguilt.

3. There should be no missinglinks but it is not that everyone of the links must appearon the surface of the evidence,since some of these links mayonly be inferred from theproven facts.


4. On the availability of twoinferences, the one in favour ofthe accused must be accepted.''

(xiii) AIR 1981 Cr.LJ SC 1014 in Re WakilSingh 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... Noneof witnesses gave anydescription of dacoits in theirstatements or in oral evidencenor gave any identificationmarks, such as stature ofaccused or whether they werefat or thin or of fair colour orblack colour ... Only one witnessidentified dacoits after certaindays from T.I. Parade ...Conviction cannot be based onlyon identification by singlewitness. (Evidence Act (1872),Ss.3, 134 and S.9). 1977 Cri.LJNOC 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 ofevidence... Witnesses, strangers toaccused... No natural light wasavailable and street light was at adistance from place of occurrence...No cogent evidence that witnesseshad clear vision of action ofaccused persons in order that their


features could get impressed intheir mind to enable them torecollect the same and identifyaccused even after lapse of longtime... Identification parade notconducted properly... Testimony ofwitnesses not acceptable... Identityand involvement of accused notestablished beyond reasonabledoubt... Accused entitled toacquittal.''

(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... eyewitness who was Police constablenot disclosing details aboutaccused in his statement beforepolice as to fix up identity ofaccused... Witness also notasserting that person whom henamed in FIR was accused beforeCourt... Police showingphotographs of accused to witnessbefore identification parade... Factthat witness was attached to policestation where the accused was inlock-up for some time prior toincident in question... Would notestablish probability of witnessesknowing accused persons...Conviction of accused on basis ofsole identification of suchwitnesses... Not sustainable.''

(xvi) 2000 Cri.LJ 698 HP in Re Sukesh Kumar


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 ofrape... Test identification paradenot conducted in terms of rules...Outcome of such parade becomesunreliable piece of evidence.

Where the order passed by theMagistrate makes it clear that theMagistrate did not ask the accusedas to whether his face was keptmuffled from the time of his arresttill the production before theMagistrate, and that the order ofthe Magistrate does not containanything to show that when theaccused was produced before him,his face was muffled, theMagistrate while remanding theaccused to the judicial custody canbe said to have committed twoirregularities leaving room tosuspect the very foundation of thetest identification parade inquestion.''

(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 oncircumstantial evidence, it is nowwell settled that the circumstancesfrom which the conclusion of guiltis to be drawn should be fullyproved and those circumstances


must be conclusive in nature toconnect the accused with thecrime. All the links in the chain ofevents must be established beyonda reasonable doubt and theestablished circumstances shouldbe consistent only with thehypothesis of the guilt of theaccused and totally inconsistentwith his innocence. In a casebased on circumstantial evidencethe Court has to be on its guard toavoid the danger of allowingsuspicion to take the place of legalproof and has to be watchful toavoid the danger of being swayedby emotional considerations,however, strong they may be, totake the place of proof. It is in thecontext of the above settledprinciples, that we shall analysethe evidence led by theprosecution.''

(xviii) AIR 1976 SC 975 in Re Bhagirath Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it has been

held as under:-

'' The prosecution can succeed bysubstantially proving the very storyit alleges. It must stand on its ownlegs. It cannot take advantage ofthe weakness of the defence. Norcan the court, on its own, makeout a new case for the prosecutionand convict the accused on thatbasis.''

(xix) AIR 1953 Calcutta 160 in Re Tulsiram

Shaw Vs. R.C. Pal Ltd. Wherein it has been held

as under:-


'' (a) Evidence Act (1872), S.154...Hostile witness... Testimonyagainst party calling him ...Witness is not necessarily hostileon this ground alone... Sectiondoes not say anything regardingdeclaring witness hostile.

A witness is not necessarily hostileif in speaking the truth as heknows and sees it, his testimonyhappens to go against the partycalling him. There is noproposition in the law of evidencethat a witness who is not partial orpartisan in favour of the partycalling him is on that ground aloneto be treated as hostile. The courtalways aspires to find if thewitness desires to tell the truth.That aspiration is the yardstickwhich measures the appreciationof the evidence of a witness. It iswith that object that the Court isgiven the discretion to permit theperson who calls a witness to putany question to the witness whichmight be put to him in cross-examination... But that is far fromsaying that a witness is hostilewhether his testimony is such thatit does not support the case of theparty calling him. Such a viewwould seriously undermine theindependence, integrity and dignityof a witness in a court of law. AIR1922 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:-


''(A) Evidence Act (1872), S. 154...Fact that witness has becomehostile... Fact to be established byeliciting information givingindication of hostility.

A witness cannot be treatment ashostile merely because hisevidence is favourable to the otherside, and the fact that the witnesshas become hostile has to beestablished by eliciting informationsuch as could give an indication ofhostility.''

(xxi) 1978 CLR (SC) 75 in Re State of Haryana

Vs. Jagbir Singh etc. wherein it has been held as

under:-

'' (C) Criminal Trial ... Caseinvolving murder charge dependingwholly upon circumstantialevidence... Circumstancesappearing from prosecutionevidence, however, showingexistence of ''padding'' inprosecution case and certainevidence having been fabricated toimplicate the accused... Accusedheld entitled to acquittal on thatscore.''

(xxii) AIR 1929 Lahore 344 FB in Re Sukhan

Vs. Emperor wherein it has been held as under:-

'' (a) Evidence Act, S.27... Only thatportion of information which isimmediate and proximate cause ofdiscovery of fact can be proved


(c ) Evidence Act, S.27... Factdiscovered refers to material factand not mental fact.

The expression ''fact'' as defined inS.3 includes not only the physicalfact but also the psychological factor mental condition of which anyperson is conscious. It is in theformer sense that the word is usedin 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 theevidence is legally admissiblemust be ensured by Court.

In appreciating the evidenceagainst the accused the primeduty of a court is firstly toensure that the evidence islegally admissible, that thewitnesses who speak to it arecredible and have no interest inimplicating him or have ulteriormotive.

(F) Evidence Act, Section 8...Fact showing conduct ofaccused... Admissibility

(E) A fact discovered within themeaning of Section 27 must referto a material fact to which theinformation directly relates.That information which does notdistinctly connect with the factdiscovered or that portion of the


information which merelyexplains the material thingdiscovered is not admissibleunder Section 27 and cannot beproved.''

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 other accused having committed

murder of Jessica Lal. None of these

witnesses have stated before the court

that accused Sidhartha Vashisht fired a

shot from his pistol at Jessica Lal. All

three of them have categorically stated

that they did not see accused Sidhartha

Vashisht firing a shot at Jessica Lal

deceased. All the three witnesses were

declared hostile by ld. Special

Prosecutor. However, PW2 Shyan Munshi has

stated the story of the prosecution in


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 ld. Special PP has

categorically admitted that the 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. I also agree with the

contention of ld. Special PP that the

vehicle Tata Safari no.CH-01-W-6535 was


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 proved on record that Tata Siera

number HR-26-H-4348 was alloted to accused

Amardeep Singh Gill by the Cocacola

Company at the relevant time.


of ld. Special PP that accused Amardeep

Singh Gill was having mobile phone


no.9811100237 while accused Alok Khanna

was having mobile phone no.9811068169.

These mobile phones were given by

Hindustan Cocacola company to them at the

relevant time.


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.



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. I also agree with the submissions

made 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.


submissions made by ld. Special PP that on

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


private party was going on at the said

restaurant Tamarind Cafe, this was a

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

sleeve white shirt.



accused Sidhartha Vashisht alongwith co-

accused persons namely Amardeep Singh

Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas 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.


record that Jessica Lal was transferred

from Apollo hospital to AIIMS hospital


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.


record that injury no.3 was sufficient to

cause death in the ordinary course of

nature.



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. She told

him to give her the gun. She has further

deposed that she thought 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


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 a 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 mean that accused Sidhartha

Vashisht had actually fired 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


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. So this is a very weak type

of evidence that she felt that accused

might have fired a shot at Jessica Lal. I


donot agree with the contention of ld.

Special PP that I should hold that accused

Sidhartha Vashisht had fired a shot at

Jessica Lal simply because PW Beena Ramani

had a feeling that he might have fired a

shot at her.


submitted that PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has

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 the evidence of PW1 Deepak

Bhojwani it only stands 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. It has also come in the

evidence of PW1 Deepak Bhojwani, PW24


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 it has been proved on

record that four accused persons were

present in the party on the night

intervening 29/4/99 and 30/4/99. So, I

agree with the submissions of ld. Spl PP

that these four persons were seen at the

spot of occurrence on the night of 29-

30/4/99.



namely Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Amardeep Singh @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna

and Vikas Yadav had come to Tamarind Cafe

in a black Tata Safari bearing

registration no.CH-01-W-6535. 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.


244. Ld. Special PP has also


were in touch with each other on the

mobile phones or on the landline phones

after the occurrence. I have gone through

the statement of PW16 Raj Narain that

several STD calls were made from telephone

no.3782072 to Chandigarh at the telephone

number which was installed at the house

of accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

Sharma. 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 not been proved on record that

landline phone and Mobile phones from

where these calls were made were actually

made by the accused persons themselves.

In the 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 does not prove the

involvement of the accused in the

commission of crime. Moreover, telephone

number was installed at the residence of

Sh. D.P. Yadav and it could not be said


that accused Vikas Yadav had made these

calls to Chandigarh to accused Sidhartha

Vashisht. Nor does it prove that both

accused persons were involved in the

commission of crime.


submitted that PW94 SI Bijender Singh has

recorded conversation between Ashok Dutt

and Ravinder Sudan who had left for USA.

246. I have gone through the

conversation recorded between these two

persons but 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 accused had not used the word

''Shyamjee'' 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.



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. But the

prosecution has not produced any cogent

evidence to prove that this Black Tata

Safari was being used by accused persons

at the relevant time.

248. Ld. Special PP has submitted

that accused Harvinder Chopra, Yograj

Singh, Shyam Sunder Sharma had also

harboured accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma for giving 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



submitted that accused Sidhartha Vashisht

had absconded from the jurisdiction of

police immediately after commission of

crime and he could not be arrested

immediately on 3/5/99 and 4/5/99 by the

police at all the available addresses of


the said accused. I have gone through the

statement of PW87 Inspector Raman Lamba

who has deposed that accused Sidhartha

Vashisht could not be arrested on 3/4-5-

99. 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. He

thereafter gave a notice to the father of

accused Mannu Sharma to produce him

before the police. He has also admitted

that on 6/5/99 accused Sidhartha Vashisht

surrendered before the police at

Chandigarh and he was produced by 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


Vashisht after the arrest 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


to the father of accused Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma to 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 PP that accused had

absconded after 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. I have also heard the arguments

of ld. Counsel for the accused and I

agree with the counsel for the accused

persons that prosecution had examined

three eye witnesses who had seen the

murder with their own eyes namely PW2

Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and PW4 Karan

Rajput. All these three witnesses have

categorically stated that they have not

seen the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma firing a shot from his pistol

at Jessica Lal. All the three witnesses


have been declared hostile by special PP

and in their cross examination by the

Special PP they did not support the

version of prosecution.

251. I have also gone through the

statement of PW2 Shyan Munshi who has

given before the court the entire story

of the prosecution in detail in

examination-in-chief but he has not

identified accused Mannu Sharma having

fired a shot at Jessica Lal. PW2 Shyan

Munshi has further deposed that in his

presence two shots were fired by two

different persons. One shot was fired at

the roof of the restaurant from one pistol

by one person and the other shot was

fired at Jessica Lal from the other

pistol by another person which 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


report. Two fired bullets were

recovered from the spot and both these

bullets were sent for analysis to CFSL

New Delhi. 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. Prosecution again

sent these two fired cartridges to

FSL Jaipur for analysis. The Ballistic

experts at FSL Jaipur also submitted the

report and also opined that these two

cartridges 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 Delhi and the other from FSL

Jaipur have given a report that these

two fired cartridges were fired from two

different pistols. Not only this they have

also opined that these two fired

cartridges were different in size and

characteristics and they 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.


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 record by the

prosecution. Rather 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 the record

which reveals that Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma was arrested on 6/5/99 and

the police obtained his police remand from

6/5/99 to 12/5/99 and from 12/5/99 to

17/5/99 but the police has failed to

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 been recovered from accused

Sidhartha Vashisht it could have linked


him with the commission of crime but on

account of non recovery of pistol this

vital link in the chain is missing.


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. I 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


Hindi.


of ld. Counsel for the accused that

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu 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 before the court

that KF stands for Kirki Factory and

these 25 cartridges sold to him were made

in India at Kirki Factory while the

Ballistic expert have opined that two

cartridge which 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


before the commission of crime. So these

fired cartridges recovered from the spot

do not connect accused Sidhartha Vashisht

with the commission of crime.

256. I 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. I

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 it appears that PW101 had

decided that accused Sidhartha 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


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 was involved in the

commission of crime. I agree 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.


of ld. counsel for the accused that PW30

Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar was not

present at the spot on the night of

occurrence i.e. on the night of 29-30-4-

99, As per DD no.40A it is clearly

mentioned that 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. Whereas

PW101 Insp. Surender Sharma has deposed

that he had taken Delhi Home Guard Sharwan

Kumar along with him to the spot at


2.25am. The presence of PW30 at the spot

is 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 evidence against the accused

persons. Once PW30 Delhi Home Guard

Sharwan Kumar has left the police station

at about 2.20am for Dera village as per

the DD no.40A Ex.PW13/D1, there is no

question of PW30 Sharwan Kumar again


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 PS Mehrauli

for registration of case 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 in the cross

examination that there was no

advertisement made by the police party for

recruitment of the constables in the

newspaper nor he had applied against any


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 admitted that on the

recommendation of PW101 Insp. Surender

Kumar Sharma and the other senior officers

he was appointed as constable out of turn

and as a 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.


of ld. Counsel for accused persons that


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



it is not so recorded.

261. He has further deposed before

the court that he had checked up all the

vehicles which were found locked. This


statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC wherein it

is not so recorded.


the court that he had started his duty at

the place where Black Tata Safari was

parked. This portion was got confronted

with his statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC

wherein it is not so recorded.


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.



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.


the court that vehicle Tata Sierra came

slowly and took a U-turn at the spot, this



is not so recorded.


the court that Black Tata Safari was

attempted to be opened with a key, this


statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC wherein

the word 'key' is not mentioned.


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 with his statement recorded

u/s161 Cr.PC wherein it is not so

recorded.


the court that he does not know how many

police officials were present inside the


Qutub Colonnade at that time. He has told

the fact of Black Tata Safari being

removed from the spot to one Head

Constable but he does know his name nor he

knows from which police station that Head

constable had come, this portion was got

confronted with his statement recorded

u/s161 Cr.PC wherein it is not so

recorded.


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.


of ld. counsel for accused that PW101

Insp. Surender Kumar Sharma has also

introduced the story of broken pieces of

glass recovered from Black Tata Safari.

No such broken pieces of glass were

recovered from inside the Black Tata

Safari by PW91 SI BD Dubey who had

recovered the vehicle from Noida.



statement of PW91 SI BD Dubey who has

stated that on 2/5/99 on receipt of

information on telephone that a vehicle

involved in Jessica Lal murder case was

parked at NTPC township. He went to the

spot and seized the Black Tata Safari

bearing no.CH-01-W-6535 and he also

conducted thorough search of 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 were

found inside the Black Tata Safari. 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 also admitted that

he joined police of PS Mehrauli in the

investigation of this case on 2/5/99

itself. This version of PW91 SI BD

Dubey is also contrary to the statement

of PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar Sharma as he


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.


statement of PW91 SI BD Dubey who has

deposed before the court that he has

joined the Delhi police in the

investigation on 2/5/99 whereas PW101

Insp. Surender Kumar Sharma has 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


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 introduced by PW101 in order to

prove the prosecution case against the

accused persons.


statement of PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar

Sharma who has further admitted in his

cross examination that Ex.PW100/DB which

is seizure memo 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


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.


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 Tata Safari bearing

no.CH-01-W-6535 which is registered in

the name of 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 it at UP at Sector 24 Noida

police station while this vehicle was

already in the custody of police as it was

recovered from Karnal on 30/4/99.



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 Colonnade on the 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


Sharma had been using Black Tata Safari

bearing no.CH-01-W-6535 at the relevant

time. No witness has been examined in

this 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-01-

W-6535 belongs to Picadilly Agro

Industries and this car was alloted to

Harvinder Chopra who was working as

Executive Director in the company. He has

nowhere deposed in his statement that



was using the said Black Tata Safari at

the relevant time.


of ld. counsel for the accused that

prosecution has failed to connect the

mobile phone no.9811096893 with accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. PW101

has admitted that neither the aforesaid

mobile 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.


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


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. PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has

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 who were known to her at the

hospital but she has not 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 statement of witness was recorded

after 15 days. No explanation 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


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 by the Doctor at the

hospital. This fact does not 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 court that police was not

present at Apollo Hospital although she

had met police at Ashlok Hospital. From

the statement of these two persons it has


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 5.30am regarding

death of Jessica Lal. Thereafter he, SI

Sharad 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 the description of the

accused involved in the commission 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


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 a 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. The evidence of PW6 Malini

Ramani is also of no help to the

prosecution. PW6 has deposed before the

court that one person had asked her for

drinks and also from Jessica Lal. Accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma just

looks like that person. In the 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


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.


of ld. Counsel for accused that evidence

of PW20 Beena Ramani is also of no help to

the prosecution. PW20 Beena Ramani has

deposed before 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


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 at the restaurant alongwith

Shyan Munshi. She has further deposed

that she thinks that accused 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.


contention of ld. Counsel for accused that

PW24 George Mailhot was not present at the

Tamarind court cafe at the time of the

incident. I 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


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 proved from the statements of

these two witnesses that PW24 George

Mailhot had gone out of the restaurant at

the time of incident and he has been

introduced as a false witness in this

case.


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 was handed over by accused Mannu

Sharma and which was used in the

commission of crime. He has 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-


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 a talk with Ravinder Sudan at

America. So the evidence of PW57 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


side has used the word ''Sangli'' and not

''Shyamjee''. So the evidence of this

expert witness is also of no help to the

prosecution.


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. Accused

Vikas Yadav had gone to 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


against accused Vikas Yadav on 7/7/99. On

7/7/99 itself accused surrendered before

the court of MM at New Delhi and he

remained in custody upto August 1999. On

13/8/99 the 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 police.

285. I have 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 occurrence along with accused

Sidhartha Vashisht on the night of

incident but she is not sure about the


presence of these three accused persons.

She has further admitted in the cross

examination that she had 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.


the statement of PW30 Delhi Home Guard

Sharwan Kumar and his testimony has

already been rejected by me in the

foregoing paragraphs. Evidence of this

witness is of no help to the prosecution

against accused Vikas Yadav also.


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


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.


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 chance prints. So very important

piece of evidence is not available on

record.


of ld. counsel for the accused that the

witnesses examined by the prosecution with

regard to the abscontion of the accused


Vikas Yadav have also turned hostile. PW72

Lal Singh has stated that accused Vikas

Yadav had not stayed at Sariska Palace

Hotel on 9/5/99 similarly PW77 Gajender

Singh 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 not supported the 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.


statement of PW52 Chandra Prakash Chabra

and PW71 Harvinder Singh. Both these

witnesses have turned hostile and have not

stated even a 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 of the accused

persons. So the allegation of the

prosecution against accused Raja Chopra


that he had harboured accused persons by

providing the vehicle to them has not

been proved on record.


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



of the ld. counsel for the accused that

photographs of all 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


photograph of the aforesaid accused

persons were shown to her and to her

parents i.e. Beena Ramani and George

Mailhot at the police station as well as

at Interrogation centre between 1/5/99 to

5/5/99. PW30 Delhi Home Guard Sharwan

Kumar has also admitted that after the

arrest of accused persons they were

detained in lockup at police station

Mehrauli where he was posted at PS

Mehrauli. 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 the photographs of

accused persons and the accused persons

were also shown to them after their

arrest. 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.


contention of ld. counsel for accused

Shyam Sunder Sharma that no evidence has

come against accused Shyam Sunder Sharma


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 put by the ld.

Special PP regarding involvement of

accused Shyam Sunder Sharma in the

commission of crime. The story of the

prosecution that 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.


contention of ld. Counsel for 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 given food, shelter and

conveyance to accused or had harboured


after the commission of crime. Witnesses


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 contradicted by the

CFSL report New Delhi and FSL report


Jaipur which states that two fired

cartridges recovered 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. So even this link in the

chain of evidence produced by the

prosecution stands broken as the fired

bullets recovered from the spot do not

link 25 cartridges which accused Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma had purchased

from PW7 Naveen Chopra. So, a 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.


prove on record that the pistol used in


the commission of crime was handed over by

accused Sidhartha Vashisht to accused

Ravindra Krishan Sudan.


prove that accused Harvinder Chopra, Raja

Chopra, Vikas Gill, 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.


prove that accused persons had absconded

from the spot after the commission of

crime. 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 of the offences charged

against them.


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 u/s 120B/201 IPC. Accused

Harvinder Chopra, Raja Chopra, Yograj

Singh and Vikas Gill are acquitted of

the offence charged 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 courton 21st February 2006

(S.L. BHAYANA)

Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi

Jessica Lal Trial Court Judgement

Documents

Transcript of Jessica Lal Trial Court Judgement