Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Case Name: Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 19 April 2010

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2007

Appellants:

• The State (NCT of Delhi)

Respondents:

• Manu Sharma (main accused)

• Vikas Yadav

• Tony Gill

Bench: P. Sathasivam

Relevant Acts and Sections:

• Section 27 of the Arms Act

• Section 120 Indian Penal Code

• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code

• Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code

Facts of the Case

• Also known by many as the Jessica Lal Murder Case, this case marked the beginning of media trials in India. On April 29, 1999 socialite Mrs. Nina Ramani threw a lavish party in her restaurant, Tamarind Café in ‘Qutub Colonnade'. This party was attended by many socialites, politicians, bureaucrats, etc from Delhi. Jessica Lal (the victim) was a bartender at the party. She was a 34-year-old model. Manu Sharma demanded one more drink even though the bar was already closed. Jessica refused him and out of anger, Manu Sharma shot her dead. He fired two bullets out of which one hit the ceiling and another hit Jessica. The police filed the charge sheet relying on the statements of the main witnesses of the case. But during the trial, all the witnesses turned hostile.

• The trial court framed charges against Manu Sharma under Sections 302, Section 201 read with 120-B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused Amardeep Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav were charged under Section 120 read with Section 201 of IPC.

• The trial court acquitted all the accused due to lack of evidence and witness. It also said that the police could not find the murder weapon. This caused a huge public outcry. The media conducted sting operations and exposed that the witness had turned hostile.

• The decision of the trial court was appealed in the High Court by the police. The High Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. This decision was appealed by the accused in the Supreme Court of India which upheld the decision of the High Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused?

2. Whether the trial court properly examined the circumstantial evidence?

Arguments of the Appellants

• The counsel for the appellants argued that all the witnesses have either been threatened or bribed. They have turned hostile in the court. The evidence was also tampered with. Jessica Lal who lost her life did not get justice.

Arguments of the Respondents

• The respondents argued that the bullets have been fired by two different weapons. There is no evidence or witnesses which confirm that the accused fired the bullet.

• In the High Court, the counsel for the respondent argued upon the amount of authority that the court has to decide the fate of a criminal. He argued that the court ought to have been taken the prior testimony of witnesses into consideration. He also argued that the High Court may have acted due to the pressure of the media and public and hence the right of the accused to a 'free and fair trial' has been hampered.

Judgment of the Case

• The main accused, Manu Sharma was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000. The other two witnesses were charged with a fine of Rs.3000 and imprisonment of four years each.

• The Supreme Court said that “the evidence related to the incident, the statements of witnesses, circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused after the incident prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court.

• The witnesses were also charged for giving false testimony in court.

Similar Cases

• The State of Kerala v. Sooraj S Kumar, 6th November 2020

• Jagroop Singh vs the State Of Punjab on 20 July 2012

For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Is Circumstantial Evidence Enough For A Conviction?" by clicking the button below.

Is Circumstantial Evidence Enough For A Conviction?