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 Sharma

s/o Sh. Vinod Sharma
r/o H.No.229, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh
2.Vikas Yadav s/o D.P.Yadav
r/o 4/16, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad,
UP
Present address
15,BR Mehta Lane, New Delhi
3.Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill
s/o Sh. Shivdev Singh Gill
r/o H.No.541, Sector 10, Chandigarh
Present address
16/1, Second floor,
Friends Colony West, New Delhi
4.Alok Khanna s/o Rajender Kumar Khanna
r/o H.No.D-69, Second Floor,
Defence Colony, New Delhi
5.Amit Jhingan s/o Kewal Krishan Jhingan
r/o B-10/7262, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi (discharged on 23/11/2000)
6.Shyam Sunder Sharma
s/o Kedar Nath Sharma
r/o 229, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
7.Harvinder Chopra s/o Lakhmi Chand Chopra
r/o 1568, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.
8.Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill
s/o Harpal Singh Gill
r/o Amar Filling Station
in front of Singhwa Bet road,
Jagraon Distt. Ludhiana, Punjab
Present address
141, Phase 2, Mohali, Distt Ropar,Punjab
9.Yograj Singh
s/o Late Sh. Bhagh Singh Buddail
r/o H.No.508, Sector 11B, Chandigarh.
10.Ravinder Krishan Sudan @ Titu (P.O)
s/o Kewal Krishan
page no.2
r/o H.No.5546 Modern Complex Manimajra,

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

challan against the accused persons u/s.
302/201/212/120B/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act
before the court of ld. MM. The Ld. MM
committed this case to the Sessions Judge
as the case was exclusively triable by the
court of Sessions. The Ld. Sessions
Judge marked this case to the predecessor
of this court.
2. The brief facts of the

prosecution case are that on 29.4.99 at
page no.3
Qutub Colonnade at ''Once upon a time''

restaurant also called Tamarind Cafe 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
page no.4
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
page no.5
was being used. The party was attended by

a number of persons. When he was moving
around in the party he came into contact
with accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu
Sharma, who requested him to arrange
liquor for him on which he told him that
liquor was over and the bar was closed.
Then one sikh gentleman came from behind
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and told
him something and took him away towards
Tamarind Cafe. (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
page no.6
Jessica also reached Ashlok hospital and

police also came there and Jessica was
then shifted to Apollo hospital where she
was declared dead. From there he went back
to his house. 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
page no.7
counter to get something to eat and saw a

gentleman with white T-shirt who asked the
waiter to serve him two drinks. The waiter
did not pay attention to that gentleman
because he was busy in cleaning up.
Jessica was also there on the other side
of the counter and she told the gentleman
that the party was over and there was no
alcohol to be served. At that time, that
gentleman took out a pistol from the dub
of his pant and fired a shot in the air.
There was another gentleman on the other
side of the counter who fired a shot at
Jessica Lal 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
page no.8
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.
page no.9
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
page no.10
anything either to eat or to drink. When

they were standing there accused persons
came and one of them asked her to have two
drinks who was wearing jean and white 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
page no.11
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
page no.12
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
page no.13
was held as a special party organized for

farewell for her husband who was leaving
for a world trip. She has deposed that she
knew Jessica Lal, Shyan Munshi being the
friends of her daughter Malini Ramani. On
the night of 29th April 1999 a Thursday
party was going on. At about 1 or 1.30am
after the 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
page no.14
in the party. She has further deposed

that Jessica was then removed to Ashlok
Hospital and from there to Apollo
hospital where she expired.
25. PW21 ASI Madan Pal is the
draftsman who has prepared scale site plan
Ex.PW21/A.
26. PW 22 ASI Ishwar Chand is 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
page no.15
following a person and saying that ''you

are the one give me the gun''. He then
saw Jessica lying on the floor. He saw
one another man standing at the door a
Sardarji and then he went to the gate of
Qutub Colonnade in search of a police man
and saw bunch of people coming rapidly.
He also saw the one whom Bina was
following earlier. The witness has later
on identified that person to be accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. He
followed Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
on foot and then he disappeared. He went
to police station and informed policeman
about the incident. He then came back to
the spot and went first to Ashlok hospital
and then to Apollo hospital where Jessica
died.
29. PW25 Manoj 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.
page no.16
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

page no.17
witness.
47. PW 43 Shri CN Kumar is a formal
witness.
48. PW 44 Shri Shankar Mukhia is a
formal witness.
49. PW45 Sanjay Garg is a formal
witness.
50. 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.
page no.18
51. PW47 Jatinder Raj is a formal

witness.
52. PW48 Shanti Swaroop Singhal is
a formal witness.
53. PW49 Insp. Mahinder Singh Rathi
is a formal witness.
54. PW50 Harpal Singh, Principal SK

Inter College Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida is
a formal witness.
55. PW51 Rajiv Talwar is a formal
witness.
56. PW52 Chander
Parkash Chabra 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.
page no.19
64. PW60 Baldev Singh is a formal

witness.
65. PW61 Ishdeep Sharma is a formal
witness.
66. PW62 Ali Mohammad is a formal
witness.
67. PW63 Ram Avtar is a photographer

who has taken photographs of the dead body
as well as the place of occurrence. The
photographs of the dead body is Ex.PW63/1
and photographs of place of occurrence are
Ex.PW63/3 and PW63/4. 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.
page no.20
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
page no.21
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.
page no.22
82. PW78 Sub Inspector Sarad Kumar

Bisnoi is a formal witness.
83. PW 79 Shri Rajneesh Kumar
Gupta MM has conducted Test Identification
parade of accused Amar Deep Singh Gill @
Tony Gill and Alok Khanna 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.
page no.23
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.
page no.24
The file Ex.PW99/1 shows that Jessica

was brought to hospital on 30th April. She
was attended by Dr. Pankaj Arora. He has
proved the records of hospital. The dead
body of Jessica was handed over to police
station Mehrauli.
103. PW 100 is SI Sunil Kumar. He

has deposed that on receipt of DD no.41 A
he proceeded to the spot. When he reached
at the spot SI Sharad Kumar and Ct. Meenu
Mathew also reached there and they found
a black Tata Safari parked at the left
side gate. He has corroborated the
testimony of PW78 SI Sharad Kumar. He
recorded the statement of Shyan Munshi at
Ashlok hospital and sent the rukka to the
police 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
page no.25
@ Mannu Sharma is the Director of the said

company. He seized the guest list
Ex.PW24/A, collected post mortem report.
In his presence the SHO 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
page no.26
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
page no.27
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
page no.28
that the license for pistol was issued to

him. He has further submitted that PW14
Surender Singh has also proved on record
that he is the owner of Haryana Gun House
and he had sold the said pistol to accused
Sidhartha Vashisht. PW7 Naveen Chopra has
proved on record that he had sold 25
rounds of .22bore to accused Sidhartha
Vashisht on 4/2/99. Ld. Special PP has
further submitted that the pistol which
was used in the commission of crime has
not been recovered from the accused. The
accused has taken a plea that his pistol
has been lost but the accused has not
lodged any report regarding loss of the
pistol either to the police or to National
Crime Bureau so this circumstance goes
against the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma.
Ld. Special PP has further
submitted that the prosecution has proved
that the vehicle Tata Safari no.CH-01-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
page no.29
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-
page no.30
6535 which was registered in the name of

M/s Picadilly Agro Industries India
limited which is a sugar mill in Karnal
and which 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
page no.31
the Authorities. Ld. Special PP has

further submitted that on Thursday private
party used to be arranged in this Tamarind
court cafe. 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
page no.32
him that the party was over and no liquor

was available with them. Thereafter PW20
Beena Ramani who was also present there
and PW6 Malini Ramani who were present at
the spot heard two shots fired by someone.
One shot was fired in the air and the
other shot was fired at Jessica Lal which
hit Jessica Lal near her left eye as a
result of 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
page no.33
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 @
page no.34
Mannu Sharma firing a shot at Jessica Lal.

PW6 Malini Ramani and PW20-Beena Ramani
have also stated that they did not see
firing a shot at Jessica Lal.
114. Special PP has further submitted
that the presence of Alok Khanna, Amardeep
Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and 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
page no.35
reasonable doubt that on the date of

occurrence a Thursday party was going on
at Tamarind court cafe. It has also been
proved on record that 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
page no.36
evidence of this witness has to be taken

into account as she had reacted
immediately after the murder so it is the
and none else who 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
page no.37
who was being followed by Beena Ramani his

wife. He has also tried to follow
Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu Sharma but he
went away in some car. He has also stated
that 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
page no.38
statements of witnesses that this vehicle

was abandoned at the place of occurrence
and accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu
Sharma and three other accused ran away
after leaving the Tata Safari at the spot.
This Tata Safari was later on taken away
by accused Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill
and Vikas Yadav from the spot. They came
in a white Tata Sierra vehicle and accused
Vikas Yadav drove the Tata Safari from the
place of 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
page no.39
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.

page no.40
submitted that PW94 SI Brijender Singh

Joon has recorded the conversation between
PW 57 Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Soodan who
had left for USA on 4/5/99 and the
conversation has been placed on record in
the form of CD between these two persons
but PW57 Ashok Dutt has turned hostile and
has stated that no conversation took place
between him and Ravi Krishan Sudan as
alleged by the police.
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
page no.41
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
page no.42

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
page no.43
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
page no.44
arrested in this case and was declared PO.

Police also interrogated him as to where
he had stayed after his disappearance and
it has come on record that he stayed at
Shakti Resort Rajasthan and thereafter he
also stayed at Sariska Hotel at Rajasthan.
Accused Vikas Yadav 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
page no.45
IPC as they all entered into a conspiracy

to destroy the evidence in this case. He
has further submitted that prosecution has
proved that accused Harvinder Chopra,
Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill, Yograj Singh, Raja
Chopra have 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, oral
circumstantial, depends
considerably on a judicial
evaluation of the totality, not
isolated scrutiny. While it is
necessary that proof beyond
reasonable doubt should be
adduced in all criminal cases,
it is not necessary that it
should be perfect. If a case is
proved too perfectly, it is
page no.46
argued that it is artificial; if a

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

Vs. Ashok Kumar, wherein it has been held as
under :-
'' The circumstance relied
upon must be found to have
been fully established and the
cumulative effect of all the
facts so established must be
consistent only with the
hypothesis of guilt. But this is
not to say that the prosecution
must meet any and every
hypothesis put forward by the
accused however far-fetched
page no.47
and fanciful it might be. Nor

does it mean that prosecution
evidence must be rejected on
the slightest doubt because
the law permits rejection if the
doubt is reasonable and not
otherwise.''
(iv) AIR 1975 SC 856 in Re Ravinder Singh Vs.

State of Haryana wherein it has been held as
under :-
'' Once the evidence of a

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

Harishanker Vs. State wherein it has been held as
under:-
'' That apart, the appellant
Dharam Raj has failed to bring
any material on the record
which would render his
identification by the
complainant in court of
doubtful value. As stated above,
he declined to participate in the
identification parade although
he was produced on the very
next day of his arrest and,
therefore, an adverse inference
can be ligitimately drawn
against him''.
page no.48
(v)Criminal Revision 110 of (1976) 235 Delhi in

Re Balkishan Vs. State wherein it has been held
as under :-
'' (i) Evidence Act. S.138-

Construction of-witness not
cross examined on positive
material assertions affecting
the opposite party-effect of.
HELD that where cross-

examination is not directed
against the positive material
assertion affecting the opposite
party, it would amount to the
affected party accepting the
truthfulness of that assertion
unless there is some exception
proof to the contrary.''
I have gone through the aforesaid
judgments. All the aforesaid judgments have been
relied upon by the prosecution. The facts of all the
aforesaid judgments are different from the facts of
the present case and they are not applicable to the
facts of the present case. However there is no
dispute about the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Judges in the aforesaid judgments.
132. Ld. Counsel for the accused has
submitted that the prosecution has failed

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
page no.49
against the accused persons. He has

submitted that all the three eye witnesses
examined in this case by the prosecution
have turned hostile. The eye witnesses
are PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and
PW4 Karan Rajput. All these three eye
witnesses have categorically stated that
they did not see accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma firing a shot from
his pistol at Jessica Lal. All three of
them were declared hostile and in their
cross examination by ld. Special PP also
they denied the suggestion that Sidhartha
Vashist @ Mannu Sharma had fired a shot at
Jessica Lal from his pistol as a result of
which she died. These are the only three
eye witnesses produced by the prosecution
in this case and all three of them have
not supported the case of prosecution, the
accused persons are, therefore, liable to
be acquitted.
133. 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
page no.50
two empty cartridges were taken into

possession by the IO and were sent to the
FSL. The Ballistic Expert report is
Ex.PW89/DB. In the said Ballistic Expert
report it 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
page no.51
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
page no.52
the accused had absconded immediately

after the commission of crime has no basis
and it does not stand proved on record
that the accused had absconded after the
commission of crime and was evading
arrest.
135. The counsel for accused has
further submitted that the weapon of
offence i.e. Pistol used in the commission
of crime has not been recovered from
The accused Mannu Sharma was arrested on
6/5/99. His police remand was obtained
from the court upto 12/5/99 and thereafter
it was got extended to 17/5/99 but despite
obtaining remand upto 17/5/99 the police
failed to get recovered the pistol from
which was used in the commission of
offence. The police got the police remand
preponed to 15/5/99 as they 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
page no.53
ground.
136. Counsel for accused has further
submitted that even PW2 Shyan Munshi has
deposed before the court that two persons
had fired shots at the time of incident
from two different pistols. 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
page no.54
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
page no.55
statement to the police only in English

but the police had translated his
statement into Hindi and same was not read
over to him before he signed the same and
he signed 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
page no.56
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma in this case which

means that on 30/4/99 itself police had
taken a decision to secure the vehicle
black Tata Safari and also to arrest the
in this case which means that on 30/4/99
itself police 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
page no.57
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
page no.58
appears that after seizing the vehicle at

Karnal the Delhi police in connivance with
the UP Noida police got this vehicle
seized by Noida police in order to show
that the said vehicle was seized by Noida
police and not by Delhi police at Karnal
on 30/4/99.
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
page no.59
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
page no.60
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
page no.61
the case diary in the court and after

looking at the first page he closed the
same and he told the court that he does
not want to see the case diary which
further confirms that there was no mention
of Black 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.
page no.62
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.
page no.63

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
page no.64
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.

page no.65
further submitted that it has come in the

cross examination of SI B.D.Dubey PW91 of
PS Sector 24 Noida that on 2.5.99 on
receipt of information at Police station
at Sector 24, Noida UP on telephone that
the vehicle involved in Jessica Lal murder
case was parked at NTPC township. 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
page no.66
Tata Safari wanted in this case had been

seized by the police of Sector 24, Noida
UP. On 3/5/99 he went to Noida and after
getting the orders from 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
page no.67
hand over the Tata Safari vehicle seized

by the UP police. The application is made
on 3/5/99 and ld. Magistrate has issued
orders for releasing only Black Tata
Safari No.CH-01-W-6535 to Insp. Surender
Sharma and no other articles have been
ordered to be released in the said order
dated 3/5/99. 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.
page no.68
S.K. Sharma from the police of Noida has

been concocted and planted in order to
create false evidence against the accused
persons in this case and the same cannot
be believed to be true and trustworthy.
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
page no.69
presence of Black Tata Safari at the spot

and its removal by someone from there.
This witness was ordered to see the case
diary but after going through the first
page of case diary he closed the same by
saying that he does not want to see the
case diary. So it is evident that after
going through the case diary he finds that
there was no mention of removal of Black
Tata Safari from there so he has refused
to see the case diary. Even otherwise the
testimony of PW30 Delhi Home Guard Sharwan
Kumar is a purchased version as he has
been made constable in Delhi police
despite the fact that he was ineligible to
become a constable as he was over age and
was under qualified. PW30 Delhi Home Guard
Sharwan Kumar was recruited as a constable
against rules so that he will depose in
favour of Delhi Police and against the
accused persons. So the testimony of PW30
has been purchased by Delhi Police. His
testimony is not genuine and truthful
testimony.
stated that prosecution has also failed to
prove that accused Mannu Sharma and other
accused persons came to the spot in Black
page no.70
Tata Safari bearing no.CH-01-W-6535. The

prosecution has also failed to prove that
this car was being used by accused Mannu
Sharma at the relevant time. The
prosecution examined PW48 Shanti Swaroop
who has 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
page no.71
alleged that accused Mannu Sharma had been

using mobile phone no.9811096893 in order
to contact the other accused persons after
the commission of crime but it has not
been proved 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
page no.72
Deepak Bhojwani who claims that he was

present at the spot in the said party at
the time of incident but PW24 George
Mailhott has deposed before the court that
he had submitted a list of guests who had
attended the party on 29/4/99 at Tamarind
Cafe at Qutub 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
page no.73
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
page no.74
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.
page no.75
Moreover the photographs of the accused

were published in the leading newspaper
dated 7/5/99 of Tribune so the conducting
of TIP of accused after the publication of
photographs in 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.
page no.76
submitted that PW6 Ms. Malini Ramani has

deposed that the person who had asked for
two drinks from her and Jessica Lal just
looks like Sidhartha Vashisht. 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.
page no.77

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
page no.78
restaurant when she heard two shots and

she saw Jessica Lal falling on the ground.
So the evidence of PW20 Beena Ramani is of
no help to the prosecution.
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
page no.79
against the aforesaid accused persons and

that case was fixed for 2/2/2002. This
application was heard by MM on 31/10/2001
and the case was preponed to 24/11/2001.
On 24/11/2001 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
page no.80
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
page no.81
CCI company of USA. This fact has been

established by the CFSL expert namely PW95
Prem Sagar Minocha who was examined in the
court and he categorically stated that the
cartridges which were sent for analysis to
the CFSL were having mark 'C' on its cap
and these were manufactured by CCI company
of USA which means that cartridges which
were used in the commission of crime were
neither purchased by accused Sidhartha
Vashisht at any point of time nor were
used by him in the commission of crime in
this case.
162. It is further submitted by

counsel for the accused that PW87 Insp.
Raman Lamba has deposed before the court
that on 6/5/99 accused had handed over
the arms licence to him which was seized
vide memo Ex.PW80/B. This memo does not
bear the signatures of Harish Ghai
advocate who was present when the accused
was 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
page no.82
Harish Ghai had refused to sign the

seizure memo whereas PW80 SI Nirbhay Singh
has stated that only Insp. Raman Lamba can
explain as to why Harish Ghai had not
signed the seizure memo but he does not
remember anything. It is very evasive
reply given by PW87 and it shows that the
arm licence was never seized from accused
Sidhartha Vashisht as it does not bear the
signatures of Harish Ghai who was present
at the time of seizure of the same and the
same has been planted on the accused in
this case.
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
page no.83
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
page no.84
installation at the house of Ravinder

Sudan. So it has not been proved on record
that the telephone which was dialed from
India to America was in fact installed in
the name of Ravinder Sudan or not. In the
cross examination PW94 SI Brijender Singh
has further stated that there is no
documentary proof to show that the phone
of the person in America was that of
Ravinder Sudan @ Titu as the audio tape
was not sent for examination to CFSL to
prove that the said phone voice belonged
to Ravinder Sudan @ Titu. 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.
page no.85
Counsel for accused Vikas Yadav that there

is no force in the arguments advanced by
ld. Special PP that accused Vikas Yadav
had absconded immediately 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
page no.86
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
page no.87
presence of all these three accused

persons. She has further deposed in the
cross examination that she had seen the
photographs of 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
page no.88
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
page no.89
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
page no.90
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
page no.91
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.
page no.92
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
page no.93
from Black Tata Safari seized by him

although he has admitted that he had come
to know that this vehicle was involved in
the murder of Jessica Lal. Had he seized
the chance prints from Black Tata Safari
this would 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
page no.94
has also categorically stated that he was

working as a Manager at Shakti Resort and
one Suresh Shekhar had visited the resort
on 10/5/99. He has denied that accused
Vikas Yadav had stayed at Shakti resort on
the said day.
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
page no.95
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
page no.96
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
page no.97
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
page no.98
have deposed anything against accused Alok

Khanna was PW Dinesh Kumar but he was not
produced by the prosecution in the court
so the charge framed against Alok Khanna
has not been proved on record by the
prosecution.

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
page no.99
saying for the first time that accused

Alok Khanna was accompanying accused Tony
Gill at the relevant time. This statement
has no value in the eyes of law and this
statement is bound to be rejected.

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.
page no.100
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
page no.101
close to Jessica Lal then he should have

lifted the injured to the car for taking
her to the hospital which should have
proved that he was present at the spot at
the time of occurrence. PW Beena Ramani,
Malini Ramani and George Mailhott who were
known to this witness have nowhere 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
page no.102
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
page no.103
has further deposed that he does not

remember if he had told the police that he
will be able to identify those persons who
were accompanying 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
page no.104
to identify the driver of the car who was

sitting inside the car. So PW30 Delhi Home
Guard Sharwan Kumar being an interested
witness has identified that Sikh Gentleman
Tony Gill at the instance of IO as there
was no occasion for him to see the driver
of the vehicle who was sitting inside the
car.

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
page no.105
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.
page no.106
Sharwan Kumar has further deposed before

the court that Tata Sierra took a U turn
and then came near him, this portion was
got confronted with his statement u/s 161
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
page no.107
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
page no.108
this case and they should not be allowed

to go abroad. It was further alleged that
they have removed the blood of the
deceased from the spot which amounts to
destruction of evidence. Ld. MM passed the
order dated 29/10/99 dismissing the
application of these two accused persons
Beena Ramani and George Mailhot for going
abroad. 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.
page no.109
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
page no.110
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.
page no.111
Accused are remanded to

JC in view of the TIP
to be conducted against
them.''
This order does not reflect
that accused 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
page no.112
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
page no.113
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
page no.114
hostile and have not uttered even a single

word against the accused implicating them
in the commission of crime. All the
remaining witnesses also examined on the
point of harbouring of accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma 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 relied

upon the following judgments:-
(i) 1987(1) Crimes page 198 Orissa In Re

Subas @ Sabakhia Bhoi and others Vs. State.
''The third circumstance
relied upon by the
prosecution is the fact that
appellants Subas and
Dukhishyam were not
available in their houses
until their arrest on 2.2.1983
and appellant Udia Bhoi
could not be traced until
27/4/83. The fact that the
appellants were not present
for some time after the
occurrence in their respective
houses cannot by itself lead
to the irresistible conclusion
that they had absconded
with a view to shield
themselves from the arms of
law. Without proof of
anything more such conduct
is quite compatible with
innocence as well.''
page no.115
(ii) II (1997) CCR 191 Bombay High Court in

Re State of Maharashtra Vs. Harishchandra
Tukaram Awatade wherein it has been held as
under :-
''(v)Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 3-Hostile witness-
Law-Testimony of hostile
witness - Not to be rejected
altogether - Extent to
which corroborated by
reliable witness -
Acceptable.''
(iii) 2001 Crl.LJ 487, SC in Re Gura Singh Vs.

State of Rajasthan wherein it has been held as
under :-
(A) Evidence Act (1 of
1872) S.154 - Hostile
witness - Testimony of-
Not to be excluded
entirely or rendered
unworthy of
consideration.''
(iv) AIR 2005 SC 2804 In Re Mukhtiar Ahmed

Ansari Vs. State of Delhi, wherein it has been
held as under:-
'' (D) Evidence Act (1 of
1872), S.154-Hostile
witness - Prosecution
witness not supporting
genesis of prosecution-
Accused can rely on his
evidence''.
(V) AIR 1933 Patna 496 in Re Emperor Vs.

Ardali Mian and others wherein it has been held
as under:-
(a) Criminal Trial-
Identification of accused
should be beyond
reasonable doubt- The
page no.116
evidence as to identification
of accused must be
sufficient to exclude with
reasonable certainty the
possibility of mistake.''
(vi) AIR 1995 SC 2128, Andhra Pradesh
in Re A. Jayaram and Another Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held as
under:-
'' ....Conviction cannot be based
on circumstances indicating
that the prosecution case is
quite likely to be true. For
basing the conviction in a case
governed by circumstantial
evidence, the facts established
must rule out any likelihood of
innocence of the accused.''
(vii) AIR 1972 SC 110 In Re Rahman Vs. State

of UP, wherein it has been held as under:-
(A) Evidence Act (1872), S.3-
Circumstantial evidence- The
circumstances forming
evidence must be conclusively
established and even when so
established, they must form
such a complete chain that it
is not only consistent with the
guilt but is inconsistent with
any reasonable hypothesis of
innocence.
(B) Evidence Act(1872), S.8-
Subsequent conduct of accused
- Absconding by itself is not
conclusive either of guilt or of
guilty conscience.''.
(viii) 2002 (2) JCC SC 1304 in Re Toran

Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it
page no.117
has been held as under:-
''... Sole eye witness did not try to

save his father and ran to his village
without raising any hue and cry -
Delay in lodging complaint -
Whether trial Court and High Court
rightly convicted the appellant -
Held (No) - Held : that son of
deceased is an interested witness
and his evidence ought to have been
scrutinized with greater care and
caution - Held : that conduct of
only eye witness is highly unnatural
and improbable - Held : that very
presence of eye witness at the place
and time of occurrence itself
doubtful and incredible - Appellant
acquittal.''
(ix) 41(1990) DLT (SN) 32 Delhi in Re Rajinder

Parshad & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Admn wherein it
has been held as under :-
'' Where the behaviour of the

witness is not in keeping with the
normal human conduct, his
testimony as eye witness would be
doubtful.''
(x) AIR 2004 SC 4660 in Re State of

Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh wherein it has
(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974),

Ss.378, 386, 154 - Penal Code
(45 of 1860) Ss.300 - Appeal
against acquittal - Veracity of
prosecution case - Presence of
prosecution witness at place of
occurrence doubtful -
Unexplained delay of one day in
lodging FIR - Medical evidence
totally at variance with ocular
page no.118
evidence - All these factors effect

credibility of prosecution case -
Acquittal, proper.
(xi) AIR 1979 SC 1410 in Re State of

Maharashtra Vs. Annappa Bandu Kavatage
wherein it has been held as under:-
''Before a court can act on
circumstantial evidence the
circumstances proved must be
complete and of a conclusive
nature so as to be fully
inconsistent with the innocence of
the accused and are not
explainable on any other
hypothesis except the guilt of the
accused.''
(xi) AIR 1975 Crl. L.J. 870 SUPREME COURT

1026 In Re Ram Kumar Pande Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh wherein it has been held as
under :-
'' No doubt, an FIR is a previous
statement which can, strictly
speaking, be only used to
corroborate or contradict the
maker of it. But omissions of
important facts, affecting the
probabilities of the facts, affecting
the probabilities of the case, are
relevant under Section 11 of the
Evidence Act in judging the
veracity of the prosecution case.''
(xii) 2002(4) RCR (Crl.) SC 95 in Re Balu Sonba

Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra wherein it
''B. evidence Act, Section 154...

Criminal Trial... Hostile witness...
Declaration of a witness to be
hostile does not ipso facto reject the
page no.119
evidence... Portion of evidence being

advantageous to the parties may be
taken advantage of... But the Court
before whom such a reliance is
placed shall have to be extremely
cautious and circumspect in such
acceptance.
C. Indian Penal Code, Section 302...

Murder... Case based on
circumstantial evidence... Accused
is entitled to benefit of doubt if
chain is snapped.
D. Indian Penal Code, Section

302... circumstantial evidence...
Law summed up :-
1. There must be a chain of

evidence so far complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground
for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such
as to show that within all
human probability the act
must have been done by the
accused.
2. Circumstantial evidence can be

reasonably made the basis of
an accused person's conviction
if it is of such a character that
it it wholly inconsistent with
the innocence of the accused
and is consistent only with his
guilt.
3. There should be no missing

links but it is not that every
one of the links must appear
on the surface of the evidence,
since some of these links may
only be inferred from the
proven facts.
page no.120
4. On the availability of two

inferences, the one in favour of
the accused must be accepted.''
(xiii) AIR 1981 Cr.LJ SC 1014 in Re Wakil
Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar wherein it
'' Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.

396... Dacoity with murder...
Appreciation of evidence... None
of witnesses gave any
description of dacoits in their
statements or in oral evidence
nor gave any identification
marks, such as stature of
accused or whether they were
fat or thin or of fair colour or
black colour ... Only one witness
identified dacoits after certain
days from T.I. Parade ...
Conviction cannot be based only
on identification by single
witness. (Evidence Act (1872),
Ss.3, 134 and S.9). 1977 Cri.LJ
NOC 80(Pat), Reversed.''
(xiv) AIR 1991 SC 1468 in Re Bollavaram Pedda

Narsi Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh wherein it has been held as under:-
'' Penal Code (1860), S.300...

Murder... Appreciation of
evidence... Witnesses, strangers to
accused... No natural light was
available and street light was at a
distance from place of occurrence...
No cogent evidence that witnesses
had clear vision of action of
accused persons in order that their
page no.121
features could get impressed in

their mind to enable them to
recollect the same and identify
accused even after lapse of long
time... Identification parade not
conducted properly... Testimony of
witnesses not acceptable... Identity
and involvement of accused not
established beyond reasonable
doubt... Accused entitled to
acquittal.''
(xv) 1998 Cri.LJ 4059 SC in Re Ravindra alias

Ravi Bansi Gohar Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others wherein it has been held as under:-
''(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860),

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

page no.122
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein it has

'' Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.9...

Punjab Police Rules (1938), Vol.3,
Chap.26, R.26, 32... Offence of
rape... Test identification parade
not conducted in terms of rules...
Outcome of such parade becomes
unreliable piece of evidence.
Where the order passed by the

Magistrate makes it clear that the
Magistrate did not ask the accused
as to whether his face was kept
muffled from the time of his arrest
till the production before the
Magistrate, and that the order of
the Magistrate does not contain
anything to show that when the
accused was produced before him,
his face was muffled, the
Magistrate while remanding the
accused to the judicial custody can
be said to have committed two
irregularities leaving room to
suspect the very foundation of the
test identification parade in
question.''
(xvii) AIR 1996 SC 607 in Re Balwinder Singh

Vs. State of Punjab wherein it has been held as
under:-
''4. In a case based on

circumstantial evidence, it is now
well settled that the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully
proved and those circumstances
page no.123
must be conclusive in nature to

connect the accused with the
crime. All the links in the chain of
events must be established beyond
a reasonable doubt and the
established circumstances should
be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and totally inconsistent
with his innocence. In a case
based on circumstantial evidence
the Court has to be on its guard to
avoid the danger of allowing
suspicion to take the place of legal
proof and has to be watchful to
avoid the danger of being swayed
by emotional considerations,
however, strong they may be, to
take the place of proof. It is in the
context of the above settled
principles, that we shall analyse
the evidence led by the
prosecution.''
(xviii) AIR 1976 SC 975 in Re Bhagirath Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it has been
held as under:-
'' The prosecution can succeed by

substantially proving the very story
it alleges. It must stand on its own
legs. It cannot take advantage of
the weakness of the defence. Nor
can the court, on its own, make
out a new case for the prosecution
and convict the accused on that
basis.''
(xix) AIR 1953 Calcutta 160 in Re Tulsiram

Shaw Vs. R.C. Pal Ltd. Wherein it has been held
as under:-
page no.124
'' (a) Evidence Act (1872), S.154...

Hostile witness... Testimony
against party calling him ...
Witness is not necessarily hostile
on this ground alone... Section
does not say anything regarding
declaring witness hostile.
A witness is not necessarily hostile

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

Saraswathamma and another Vs. Bhadramma
and another wherein it has been held as under:-
page no.125
''(A) Evidence Act (1872), S. 154...

Fact that witness has become
hostile... Fact to be established by
eliciting information giving
indication of hostility.
A witness cannot be treatment as

hostile merely because his
evidence is favourable to the other
side, and the fact that the witness
has become hostile has to be
established by eliciting information
such as could give an indication of
hostility.''
(xxi) 1978 CLR (SC) 75 in Re State of Haryana

Vs. Jagbir Singh etc. wherein it has been held as
under:-
'' (C) Criminal Trial ... Case

involving murder charge depending
wholly upon circumstantial
evidence... Circumstances
appearing from prosecution
evidence, however, showing
existence of ''padding'' in
prosecution case and certain
evidence having been fabricated to
implicate the accused... Accused
held entitled to acquittal on that
score.''
(xxii) AIR 1929 Lahore 344 FB in Re Sukhan

Vs. Emperor wherein it has been held as under:-
'' (a) Evidence Act, S.27... Only that

portion of information which is
immediate and proximate cause of
discovery of fact can be proved
page no.126
(c ) Evidence Act, S.27... Fact

discovered refers to material fact
and not mental fact.
The expression ''fact'' as defined in

S.3 includes not only the physical
fact but also the psychological fact
or mental condition of which any
person is conscious. It is in the
former sense that the word is used
in S.27.''
(xxiii) AIR 1972 (SC) 975 in Re Himachal

Pradesh Administration Vs. Om Prakash wherein
it has been held as under :-
''(B) Evidence... Appreciation of...

Criminal case... That the
evidence is legally admissible
must be ensured by Court.
In appreciating the evidence

against the accused the prime
duty of a court is firstly to
ensure that the evidence is
legally admissible, that the
witnesses who speak to it are
credible and have no interest in
implicating him or have ulterior
motive.
(F) Evidence Act, Section 8...

Fact showing conduct of
accused... Admissibility
(E) A fact discovered within the

meaning of Section 27 must refer
to a material fact to which the
information directly relates.
That information which does not
distinctly connect with the fact
discovered or that portion of the
page no.127
information which merely

explains the material thing
discovered is not admissible
under Section 27 and cannot be
proved.''
228. I have heard ld. Special PP for

the state, counsels for all the accused
persons and perused the record carefully.
229. The prosecution has examined

three eye witnesses in this case namely
PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and PW4
Karan Rajput. All these three eye
witnesses appeared in the court but they
did not point an accusing finger against
or any 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
page no.128
detail. He has stated that two shots were

fired by two persons from two pistols. One
shot was fired by one person on the roof
of the restaurant while the other shot was
fired by another person at Jessica Lal as
a result of which she received injuries
which resulted into her death. Ld. Special
PP has categorically admitted that all the
three eye witnesses of the prosecution
are hostile and they have not supported
the case of the prosecution at all.
However I agree with the contention of ld.
Special PP that accused Sidhartha Vashisht
was holder of licence of pistol of .22
bore and the licence of the pistol is
Ex.PW7/B. It is also proved on record by
the prosecution that Haryana Gun House had
sold 25 rounds of cartridges to accused
Sidhartha Vashisht on 4/2/99 by PW7 Naveen
Chopra. The 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
page no.129
registered in the name of M/s Picaddily

Agro Industries Private Limited Sector 34
Chandigarh, It is also proved on record
that accused Sidhartha Vashisht was one of
the director in Picadilly Agro Industry
Limited in the year 1999 but it has not
been proved on record by any witness that
the accused Sidhartha Vashisht had been
using this vehicle in the year 1999 nor it
has been proved on record by any cogent
evidence that accused Sidhartha Vashisht
had used this vehicle on the day of
occurrence and had taken this vehicle to
Qutub Colonnade on the date of occurrence.
231. I also agree with the contention

of ld. Special PP that accused Amardeep
Singh Gill and Alok Khanna were working in
Hindustan Cocacola Company at the relevant
time and they were alloted Tata Siera car
each by the company for use. It has also
been 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
page no.130
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
page no.131
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
page no.132
where post mortem was conducted on her

body by PW9 Dr. R.K.Sharma who has given
cause of death as head injury caused by
fire arm.

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
page no.133
Ramani and she felt that accused Sidhartha

Vashisht must have fired a shot at Jessica
Lal but it has been admitted by this
witness PW20 that she had not seen accused
Sidhartha Vashisht firing 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
page no.134
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
page no.135
George Mailhot, PW20 Beena Ramani and PW6

Malini Ramani that there were several
persons present in the party it may be
more than 100 persons. PW24 has also given
the list of persons present at the party
which is Ex.PW24/A, so from the evidence
of this witness 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.
page no.136
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
page no.137
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.

page no.138
Special PP that Black Tata Safari

was being used by Harvinder Chopra as he
was working as Executive Director in M/s
Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd. 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
page no.139
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
page no.140
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
page no.141
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
page no.142
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.
page no.143
Rather this story of two persons firing

two shots from two pistols has been given
by PW2 Shyan Munshi. So in my opinion the
fired two shots from the same pistol has
not been proved on 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
page no.144
him with the commission of crime but on

account of non recovery of pistol this
vital link in the chain is missing.
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
page no.145
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
page no.146
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
page no.147
statement of any witness was recorded by

the police regarding the involvement of
in this case. Nor any evidence was
collected by the police but still PW101
admits that he had received information
from senior police officers that accused
Sidhartha Vashisht 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
page no.148
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
page no.149
going along with PW101 Insp. Surender

Sharma at 2.25am from the PS to the spot
because both these things are contrary to
each other. Either PW 30 Delhi Home Guard
Sharwan Kumar can be at Dera village or he
can be at the spot. He cannot be present
at both the places as per the record of
the police station itself.
259. I have also gone through the DD
no.44 wherein it has been mentioned that
at about 3.05am a rukka has been sent by
SI Rishi Pal to Duty officer 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
page no.150
such advertisement. He has also admitted

that for recruitment of the constables the
minimum qualification is Matriculation and
there is also age bar for the recruitment
to the post of constable and the person
who is between age of 18 to 21 can only be
recruited as constable in the police. He
also admitted that he is under matric and
he is overage as his age is 27 years and
he is not eligible to become a constable.
He has also 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
page no.151
PW30 Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar has

also made substantial improvements in his
statement made before the court. In the
cross examination he has stated that 3-4
vehicles were standing on one side and one
Tata Safari was standing separately. This
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.
page no.152
the court that SHO while leaving the spot

had instructed him to remain at the spot.
This portion was got confronted with his
is not so recorded.
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
page no.153
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.
page no.154
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
page no.155
has deposed before the court that on

2/5/99 he received information about the
seizure of Black Tata Safari by Noida
police. On 3/5/99 he moved an application
before the Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad
and in the said application he requested
the Magistrate to release the vehicle on
supardari. The application of the IO is
Ex.PW101/1 and the order of the ld.
Judicial Magistrate is Ex.PW101/2. In the
application Ex.PW101/1 it is only prayed
that Black Tata Safari may be released to
the Delhi police and in the order
Ex.PW101/2 it is mentioned that only Black
Tata Safari may be released to Delhi
police, There is no mention of release of
any other article including the broken
pieces of glass.
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
page no.156
from the Black Tata Safari but there is no

mention in the order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate for release of broken
pieces of glass nor his version gets
corroboration from PW91 SI BD Dubey about
handing over of broken piece of glass.
After going through the statement of both
these witnesses I am of the opinion that
PW101 has introduced the story of broken
pieces of glass in his statement and there
is no mention of the same in the seizure
memo Ex.PW74/A nor it is mentioned in the
order of ld. Magistrate and I also hold
that broken pieces of glass were never
seized from Black Tata Safari and this has
been 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
page no.157
investigation of this case for the first

time on 18/5/99 and never joined the same
on 3/5/99 which further falsifies the
statement of PW101.
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.
page no.158

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
page no.159

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
page no.160
Tamarind Cafe at Qutub Colonnade on the

night of 29-30/4/99. In the list Ex.PW24/A
the name of PW1 Deepak Bhojwani is not
mentioned at all. 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
page no.161
appears that he was introduced later on by

the police to depose against the accused
persons. Moreover Deepak Bhojwani PW1 is
an interested witness as he was known to
the deceased, her sister and her parents.
Deepak Bhojwani had deposed before the
court that when injured Jessica Lal was
removed to Ashlok hospital he also went to
Ashlok hospital and he also found police
present there. PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has
further stated that from Ashlok hospital
he went to Apollo hospital and he met the
police at Apollo hospital and he gave the
police the description of the person who
was involved in the commission of crime.
He went to his house after Jessica Lal was
declared dead 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
page no.162
been confirmed that police had not reached

the hospital when Jessica Lal was declared
dead. This fact is further confirmed by
PW100 SI Sunil Kumar who has deposed
before the court that DD was recorded at
the police station at 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
page no.163
incident had taken place after 2am. This

further falsifies the claim of PW1 Deepak
Bhojwani that he was present at the spot
at the relevant time. PW1 has also made
improvements in the statement made before
the court and his statement is neither
reliable nor trustworthy as he has been
introduced as 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
page no.164
shown to her and also her parents at the

interrogation centre. She is not sure if
Mannu Sharma is the same person who had
asked for drink from Jessica Lal. She has
only stated that Mannu Sharma looks like
that person. So this identification is no
identification in the eyes of law. In my
opinion the evidence of this witness is
also of no help to the prosecution.
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
page no.165
met alongwith PW2 Shyan Munshi. So from

the evidence of this witness it has become
clear that even she herself is not
satisfied that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu
Sharma is the same person whom she had
confronted 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
page no.166
restaurant at 12.30 midnight and he did

not see George Mailhot thereafter at the
restaurant nor he saw George Mailhot
present at the place of incident. So it
has been 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-
page no.167
526-7751236 and 001-7184768403 nor he has

verified as to whether these telephone
numbers were installed at the residence of
Ravinder Sudan @ Titu or not. He has also
deposed before the court that he has not
verified about the ownership of this
telephone at USA. He has also admitted in
cross examination that voices of Ravinder
Sudan as well as Ashok Dutt were not sent
for examination to the CFSL to verify
that the voice belongs to Ashok Dutt and
Ravinder Sudan. Moreover PW 57 Ashok Dutt
was examined in the court and he has
turned hostile and he has stated that he
had never dialed any number at America nor
he had 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
page no.168
side has used the word ''Sangli'' and not

''Shyamjee''. So the evidence of this
expert witness is also of no help to the
prosecution.
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
page no.169
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
page no.170
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
page no.171
examination of the same. Monogram S2 and
S1 are of the same company. He has

further deposed that he has not examined
the vehicle from where the glass pieces
were recovered. So he cannot say from
which vehicle the glass pieces were taken.
In the foregoing paragraphs I have already
discussed that even the recovery of glass
pieces have become doubtful. It has not
been proved on record that glass pieces
were recovered from Black Tata Safari.
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
page no.172
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
page no.173
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
page no.174
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
page no.175
regarding his involvement in the

destruction of evidence and for harbouring
the accused in this case. All the three
witnesses PW57 Ashok Dutt, PW60 Baldev
Singh and PW68 Mangal Singh examined by
the prosecution have turned hostile and
even in their cross examination conducted
by ld. Special PP they have categorically
denied the suggestions 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
page no.176
PW52 Chander Prakash Chabra, PW64 Ravinder

Singh Gill, PW 65 Kulwinder Singh, PW69
Rakesh Atri and PW71 Harminder Singh and
all the remaining witnesses examined on
this point have turned hostile and have
not uttered even a single word against the
accused persons implicating them in the
295. Keeping in view the
discussions made above I have come to the
conclusion that all the links in the chain
of evidence produced by the prosecution
are either missing or broken. Firstly all
the three witnesses PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3
Shiv Dass and PW4 Karan Rajput have
turned hostile and none of these witnesses
have stated that accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma has fired a shot
at Jessica Lal as a result of which she
received injuries which resulted into her
death. Secondly, the pistol which was
used in the commission of crime has not
been recovered by the police from the
Thirdly, the story of the prosecution that
one person had fired two shots from the
same pistol stands contradicted by the
CFSL report New Delhi and FSL report
page no.177
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
page no.178
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.
page no.179
301. Accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma is acquitted of the offence
charged u/s 302/201/120B IPC and u/s 27 of
Arms Act. Accused Amardeep Singh Gill @
Tony Gill, accused Vikas Yadav and accused
Alok Khanna are acquitted of the offences
charged 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 court
on 21st February 2006
(S.L. BHAYANA)
Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi

Jessica Lal Trial Court Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jessica Lal Trial Court Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jessica Lal Trial Court Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.L. BHAYANA

1.Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

r/o H.No.5546 Modern Complex Manimajra,

The prosecution has filed

2. The brief facts of the

Qutub Colonnade at ''Once upon a time''

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

against accused Siddharth Vashishth @

was being used. The party was attended by

Jessica also reached Ashlok hospital and

counter to get something to eat and saw a

eye witness, but he has also turned

8. PW4 Shri Karan Rajput is also an

9. PW5 Shri Parikshat Sagar has

anything either to eat or to drink. When

was held as a special party organized for

in the party. She has further deposed

following a person and saying that ''you

34. PW30 Ct. Sharvan Kumar is a

45. PW41 Dr. Alok Chopra is the

46. PW42 Deshbandhu LDC is a formal

50. PW46 Madan Kumar is the waiter

51. PW47 Jatinder Raj is a formal

54. PW50 Harpal Singh, Principal SK

64. PW60 Baldev Singh is a formal

67. PW63 Ram Avtar is a photographer

68. PW64 Ravinder Singh Gill is a

70. PW66 Major A.R Satish (retired)

71. PW67 Niranjan Ram is a formal

73. PW69 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Atri is a

74. PW70 Sh. Rohit Bal has deposed

shouting ''catch that man, catch that man,

75. PW71 Sh. Harminder Singh is a

82. PW78 Sub Inspector Sarad Kumar

84. PW80 ASI Nirbhay Singh is a

92. PW88 Shri O.S. Srivastava Senior

102. PW99 is Dr. Deepak Vats, who

The file Ex.PW99/1 shows that Jessica

103. PW 100 is SI Sunil Kumar. He

@ Mannu Sharma is the Director of the said

Gill for getting a petrol pump pointed out

103. PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar

original FIR register from PS Mehrauli

that the license for pistol was issued to

used by the accused persons during the

6535 which was registered in the name of

the Authorities. Ld. Special PP has

him that the party was over and no liquor

the body of Jessica Lal at AIIMS hospital

Mannu Sharma firing a shot at Jessica Lal.

reasonable doubt that on the date of

evidence of this witness has to be taken

who was being followed by Beena Ramani his

statements of witnesses that this vehicle

further submitted that as per disclosure

120. Ld. Special PP has further

121. Ld. Special PP has further

submitted that PW94 SI Brijender Singh