State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

(P.O)

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.3
Qutub Colonnade at ''Once upon a time''
restaurant

also

called

Tamarind

Cafe

Thursday party was going on. At Thursday

party the liquor was being

served by the

bartenders namely

Jessica Lal and Shyan

Munshi.

2am

At

about

Shyan

Munshi

was

present at Tamarind cafe situated at Qutub

Colonnade five six persons including

one

waiter were also present there, one person

aged 30-32 years came out from the back
side of bar and asked for two drinks of
liquor.
liquor

The waiter did not serve him the

as

the

party

was

already

over.

Jessica Lal and Malini Ramani, who, were

also present there

also tried to make him

understand that party was over and that

there was no liquor available with them.
On this that person took out a pistol and
fired

one

shot

another shot at
her near her
which

she

at

the

roof

Jessica Lal

and

fired

which hit

left eye as a result of

fell

down.

Jessica

Lal

was

rushed to Ashlok hospital from where she

was shifted to Apollo hospital. On 30/4/99
in the early morning hours Jessica Lal was
declared dead
3.
also

at Apollo hospital.

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

u/s

27

Arms Act

has been framed

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.4
against

accused

Mannu Sharma.

Siddharth

Vashishth

Charge u/s 120B/201 IPC has

been framed against accused Vikas Yadav,

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok
Khanna.

Charge

framed

against

Chopra,

Raja

u/s

212

the

IPC

accused

Chopra,

Vikas

Gill and Yograj Singh.

has

Harvinder

Gill

Sharma.

Charges

Ruby

Charge u/s 201/212

IPC has been framed against accused

Sunder

been

were

Shyam

framed

and

read over to the accused persons to which

all the accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
4.
Prosecution has examined as many
as 101 witnesses in support of its case.
Two
Court
witnesses
have
also
been
examined.
5.

PW1

Shri

Deepak

Bhojwani

deposed before the court that he

has

attended

the party on 29/4/99. At about 11'O clock

in the night he had purchased four coupons
of Rs.100/- each for purchase of liquor.
On that day Jessica
and

Shyan

Munshi

Lal (since deceased)

were

serving

drinks.

Jessica Lal was wearing blue denim shorts

and white half sleeves shirt.

Jessica was

a model by profession. On that day the

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.5
was being used. The party was attended by
a number of persons.

When he was moving

around in the party he came into contact

with

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

Sharma,

who

requested

him

to

arrange

liquor for him on which he told him that

liquor was over and the bar was closed.
Then

one sikh gentleman came from behind

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and told

him something and took him away towards
Tamarind

Cafe.

identified

both

Sidhartha

(Witness
the

Vashisht

has

accused
@

correctly
persons

Mannu

Sharma

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill.)

as
and

He has

further deposed that accused Tony Gill had

come

with

identified

2/3

friends.

accused

accused)

All

of

cafe.

At

that

Alok

them

(witness
Khanna

went

time

bar

to

has

another
Tamarind

counter

had

closed and the waiters were in the process

of removing the empty bottles.

After 15-

20 minutes he heard somebody saying that

Jessica

was

shot.

He

rushed

towards

Tamarind cafe and saw Jessica lying on the

floor.

Jessica

was

carried

to

Ashlok

hospital. He also followed them in his own

car and remained at the hospital for about
1

and

half

hour.

Thereafter

parents

of

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.6
Jessica also reached Ashlok hospital and
police

also

came

there

and

Jessica

was

then shifted to Apollo hospital where she

was declared dead. From there he went back
to

his

house.

photographs of

Police

showed

him

accused Mannu Sharma and

accused Tony Gill, which he identified.

6.

PW2

Shyan

Munshi

is

an

eye

witness. He has not supported the case of

prosecution fully. He has deposed before
the court that on 29/4/99 he had visited
Tamarind Cafe, it was Thursday night, he
was

attending

the

party

on

that

night.

Alcohol and food was being sold there on

coupons.

He had met Jessica Lal on that

night in the party and the party was going

on at Qutub Colonnade Tamarind Court.
liquor

was

being

served

in

the

The

outside

counter in the open space. Besides Jessica

Lal

and

Malini,

there

were

other

few

persons who were helping in serving liquor

but he was not serving the liquor to the
gathering.

At about 2am there were about

6-7 persons inside the Cafe at that time.

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.7
counter to get something to eat and saw a
gentleman with white T-shirt who asked the
waiter to serve him two drinks. The waiter
did not pay attention to that gentleman
because

he

was

busy

in

cleaning

up.

Jessica was also there on the other side

of the counter and she told the gentleman
that the party was over and there was no
alcohol to be served. At that time, that
gentleman took out a pistol from the dub
of his pant and fired a shot in the air.
There was another gentleman on the other
side of the counter who fired a shot at
Jessica

Lal

gentleman

and

was

she

fell

wearing

down.

light

That

coloured

clothes. This witness was declared hostile

by the Spl.P.P.
ld.

Special

He was cross examined by

PP

and

in

his

cross

examination he has deposed that the person

who was wearing white T-shirt and asked
for the drinks is not present amongst the
accused

persons.

He

has

denied

that

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

is the person who was wearing white Tshirt

and

had

asked

for

drinks

from

Jessica Lal. He was much taller than the

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.
7.

PW3 Shiv Dass Yadav is also an

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.8
eye

witness,

hostile.
that

he

but

he

has

also

turned

He has deposed before the court

had

been

working

Colonnade as an electrician.

at

Qutub

On 29/4/99

he was present at the Qutub Colonnade in

connection with his duty.

He was present

on the terrace of Qutub Colonnade and was

disconnecting the temporary lights after
the party was about to be over. At about
2am he had gone to Cafe on hearing noise
of

bursting

of

two

crackers

like

(patakha). He saw Beena Ramani going ahead

of him and he followed her inside the cafe
and saw Jessica Lal lying on the floor in
injured condition. He had not seen anyone
firing a shot at Jessica Lal.
8.

PW4 Shri Karan Rajput is also an

eye witness and has not supported the case

of prosecution. He has not identified the
accused as the person who committed the
murder.

He has deposed before the court

that on 29th

April 99 he was not in Delhi

and had not gone to Qutub Colonnade to

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.9
9.

PW5

Shri

Parikshat

Sagar

has

deposed that on the date of incident he

was

present

there

with

at

the

party

Amardeep

Gill. He had

Singh

and

had

gone

Tony

Gill

seen Jessica Lal there on

that night. She was serving drinks and he

did not meet any of the accused persons on
that

night

till

the

time

he

remained

there. This witness was declared hostile

and was cross examined by ld. Special PP.
10.

PW6

deposed
April,

Ms.

before
1999

Colonnade.

the

there
It

Malini

was

court
was

Ramani
that

party

Thursday.

on
at

It

has
29th
Qutub

was

farewell party for her stepfather namely

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

waiters

behind food

were

also

there.

She

went

counter with Sanjay Mehtani

and Jessica was also there and was looking

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.10
anything either to eat or to drink.

When

they were standing there accused persons

came and one of them asked her to have two
drinks who was wearing jean and white Tshirt and was in his mid twenties having
fair complexion

on which she showed her

inability as the bar was closed. Then he

kept on asking her and Jessica for drinks
but he was not served

drink. That person

was told that he could not be given a sip

of whisky even for a thousand rupees to
which he replied that he can even have a
sip of her.

On this she became irritated

and left the place with her friend Sanjay

Mehtani.

When she was going outside she

met her mother and when she was standing

on the other side of the courtyard after
about a minute

Shyan Munshi came running

to her and told her about the gun shot

injury

received

by

Jessica.

On

hearing

this she became unconscious. (witness has

correctly identified
asked

for

drinks

as

the person who had

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma).

11.
owner

PW7
of

Sidharth

gun

Shri

Naveen

shop

Vashisht

from
@

Chopra

is

where

accused

Mannu

Sharma

the

had

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.11
against license.
12.
PW8 Sardar
formal witness.

Gurnam

13.

R.K.Sharma

PW9

conducted

is

post

Dr.

mortem

on

Singh

the

is

who

has

body

of

deceased Jessica. As per PW9 the cause of

death

was

head

injury

due

to

fire

arm

injury which was ante mortem in nature.

The report prepared by Pw9 is Ex.PW9/B.
He has further deposed that injuries no.3
to 6 are consequential injuries to injury
no.3
cause

and

injury

death,

no.3

in

the

was

sufficient

ordinary

course

to
of

nature.
14.

PW10 Dr. Jasvinder Singh is the

Doctor posted at Ashlok hospital who has

taken

injured

hospital

on

Jessica

the

Lal

asking

to

of

Dr.

Apollo
Ashok

Chopra, owner of Ashlok hospital as there

was no arrangement for neuro surgery in
Aaslok hospital.
15.

PW11

ASI

Veer

Singh

Santosh

is

is

formal witness.
16.

PW

12

HC

formal

witness.
17.

PW13

ASI

Kartar

Singh

is

formal witness.
18.

PW 14 Shri Surinder

Singh is a

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.12
formal witness.
19.

PW15 Sumitabh Bhatnagar was the

Manager in Hindustan Coca Cola Breweries

Limited.

He

has

identified

accused

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill

and Alok

Khanna as both were employees of Hindustan

Coca Cola Breweries Limited.
20.

PW16 Shri Raj Narain Singh is a

formal witness.
21.

PW17 Sh. Mohd. Zafar is a formal

witness.
22.

PW18

Manvir

PW19

Shri

Singh

is

formal

witness.
23.

Andleep

Sehgal

has

deposed that he had attended the Thursday

party on 29th
wife.
knows

He

April, 1999 along with his

has

further

deposed

that

he

accused Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony

Gill, Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

and Mr. and Mrs.

Aman Gill, Parikshat

Sagar. He also found Mr. and Mrs. Aman

Gill, Pariksat Sagar at the party but he
had not met accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu

Sharma

and

Amardeep

Singh

Gill

Tony Gill on that day in the party.

24.

PW 20 Smt. Bina Ramani is the

owner of Qutub Colonnade. She has deposed

that on 29th April 1999 the Thursday party

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

the

towards

party

was

restaurant

over

and

she

met

walked

Malini

her

daughter. She went into the restaurant and

saw

few

people

standing

next

to

the

counter and she heard a shot. A moment

later, she heard another shot.

She saw

Jessica who was standing with people at

far end falling down.
came

with

another

Then Shyan Munshi

person.

Shyan

Munshi

told her that Jessica had been shot.

The

companion of Shyan was wearing white Tshirt.

She asked him to give his gun.

She then met

her husband and told him

that this was the man who had shot Jessica

Lal and to see in what car he gets into.
She

has

also

identified

the

accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma in the

court.

She

Amardeep

has

Singh

also
Gill

identified
@

Tony

accused

Gill,

Alok

Khanna and Vikas Yadav to be present with

accused Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu Sharma

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.14
in the party.

She has further deposed

that Jessica was then removed to Ashlok

Hospital

and

from

there

to

Apollo

hospital where she expired.

25.

PW21

ASI

Madan

Pal

is

the

draftsman who has prepared scale site plan

Ex.PW21/A.
26.

PW

22

ASI

Ishwar

Chand

is

Dunglay

is

formal witness.
27.

PW23

Shri

Rouble

formal witness.
28.

PW24

husband

of

George

Mailhot

Ms. Beena

deposed that the

is

the

Ramani. He has

party on 29th April 1999

was organized as farewell party for

him

as he was going

The

for a world trip.

entire party was organised outside in the

courtyard and in the private terrace. He
has also handed over the list of invited
guests at the party which is Ex.PW24/A.
At the time of occurrence he was standing
in the courtyard near a large tree
20

feet

away

from

the

door

about
of

the

restaurant.

He heard two pop shots like

balloon

within

Munshi

and
came

running

few

and

second
told

Shyan

him

someone had fired a shot at Jessica.

went to the restaurant

that
He

and saw Ms. Bina

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.15
following a person and saying that ''you
are the one give me the gun''.

He then

saw Jessica lying on the floor. He

saw

one another man standing at the door a

Sardarji and then he went to the gate of
Qutub Colonnade in search of a police man
and saw bunch of people coming rapidly.
He

also

saw

the

one

whom

Bina

was

following earlier. The witness has later

on identified that person to be accused
Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu

Sharma.

He

followed Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

on foot and then he disappeared. He went
to police station and informed policeman
about the incident.

He then came back to

the spot and went first to Ashlok hospital

and then to Apollo hospital where Jessica
died.
29.

PW25

Manoj

PW26

Balbir

Kumar

is

formal

is

formal

witness.
30.

Singh

witness.
31.

PW 27 Pratap Malik is a formal

witness.
32.

PW28 Ramesh Chander is a formal

witness.
33.

PW29 Ms. Sahana Mukherjee

formal witness.

is a

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.16
34.

PW30

Ct.

Sharvan

Shri

Narain

Kumar

is

formal witness.
36.

PW31

is

formal

witness.
37.

PW32 Shri Ved Prakash Madan

is

a formal witness.
37.

PW33 Shri PV Mathew is a formal

witness.
38.

PW34 Shri Tarsem Lal Thappar

is

a formal witness.
39.

PW35 Shri Birbal is

a formal

witness.
40.

PW36 Shri Ram Lal Jagdev

is a

formal witness.
41.

PW37

Shri

Martin

Shri

A.

Raj

is

is

formal witness.
42.

PW

38

Hassan

formal witness.
43.

PW39 Manasvi Mittal

is a formal

witness.
44.

PW40 Ayub Khan

is a formal

witness.

45.

PW41

Dr.

Alok

Chopra

is

the

Managing Director of the Aashlok hospital.

He is a formal witness.

46.

PW42 Deshbandhu LDC

is a formal

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.17
witness.
47.

PW 43 Shri CN Kumar

is a formal

witness.
48.

PW 44 Shri Shankar Mukhia is a

formal witness.
49.

PW45 Sanjay Garg

is a formal

witness.
50.
at

PW46 Madan Kumar is the waiter

Qutub

Colonnade

restaurant.

He

has

deposed that the occurrence took place at

1.30 or 1.45am, At that time he saw some
people rushing in and some people rushing
out

of

the

restaurant

and

they

were

shouting ''Jessica lal ko goli lag gai''.

He went to restaurant and saw

Jessica

Lal,

guests,

lying

Beena

on

Ramani,

present there.

the

floor.

Jitender

Some

Raj

were

also

Two-three other workers

were also present there

Beena Ramani made

a telephone call and Shiv Dass, brought a

sheet of cloth. Jatinder Raj, Beena Ramani
and

he

wrapped

the

Jessica

Lal

in

the

bedsheet and took her in an Esteem car,

Beena Ramani, Jatinder Raj and he also sat
down

in

hospital.

the

car

and

reached

Aashlok

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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.

Abhijeet

PW53

Ghosal

is

formal witness.
58.

PW54

Varun

Shah

is

formal

witness.
59.

PW55 Mukesh Saini

is a formal

witness.
60.

PW56

Chetan Nanda is a formal

witness.
61.

PW57

Ashok

Dutt

is

formal

witness.
62.

PW58

S. Jaswinder Singh

is a

formal witness.
63.

PW59

formal witness.

Inderjeet

Bakshi

is

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.19
64.

PW60

Baldev Singh

is a formal

witness.
65.

PW61 Ishdeep Sharma

is a formal

witness.
66.

PW62 Ali Mohammad

is a formal

witness.

67.

PW63 Ram Avtar is a photographer

who has taken photographs of the dead body

as well as the place of occurrence.

The

photographs of the dead body is Ex.PW63/1

and photographs of place of occurrence are
Ex.PW63/3 and PW63/4.
entry

and

ceiling of

exit

of

The photographs of
bullet

hole

of

the

the restaurant are Ex.PW63/5

and PW63/6.

68.

PW64 Ravinder Singh Gill

is a

formal witness.
69.

PW65

Kulvinder

Singh

is

formal witness.
70.

PW66 Major A.R Satish

(retired)

is a formal witness.
71.

PW67 Niranjan Ram

is a formal

witness.
72.

PW68

formal witness.

Sh.

Mangal

Singh

is

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.20
73.

PW69 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Atri is a

formal witness.

74.

PW70 Sh. Rohit Bal

that

he

is

profession.

Fashion

has deposed
Designer

by

He knew Beena Ramani, who was

running a complex called Qutab Colonade,

in which there is a restaurant known as
Tamarind

Court

Cafe.

He

also

knew

daughters of Ms. Beena Ramani, Malini and

Geetu.

He has further deposed that in

the year 1999, at Qutab Collonade,

there

used to be special parties on Thursday.

He attended two of them.

It was his third

visit to the party, when Jessica Lal was

shot dead.

It was the night between 29th

and 30th April, 1999, he reached in the

party on the date of occurrence at about
1.14 a.m.
of

his

within about 7,8 or 9 minutes

arrival

there,

suddenly

he

saw

Malini running into the courtyard from the

indoor section to the outdoor section and
she was shouting that Jessica Lal has been
shot.

He

knew Jessica

before the incident.

He saw that soon

after Malini, Beena Ramani

inner section

Lal very well

came from the

of the restaurant.

Beena

Ramani was running in the courtyard area

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.21
shouting ''catch that man, catch that man,
stop him'' or something like that pointing
towards the Exit.
the

place

Ramani

from

had

He rushed inside to
where

Malini

out

running.

come

and

He

Jessica Lal lying on the floor.

from his mobile at No.100.
was

9811020955.

Then

Beena
saw

He rang

His mobile No.

he

called

his

personal doctor, Dr. Alok Chopra.

Dr.

Alok Chopra advised to send the injured to

the hospital immediately.
to Ashlok Hospital.

Then they went

From Ashlok hospital,

they were sent to Apollo hospital.

75.

PW71 Sh. Harminder Singh

is a

formal witness.
76.

PW72

Lal

Singh

is

formal

Sabrina

Lal

is

Satish

Kumar

is

witness.
77.

PW73 Ms.

formal witness.
78.

PW74

Ct.

formal witness.
79.

PW75 Shri Chander Sen Isar

is a

formal witness.
80.

PW76

SI

Vijay

Kumar

has

conducted part investigation of the case.

81.
witness.

PW77 Gajender Singh

is a formal

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.22
82.

PW78

Sub Inspector Sarad Kumar

Bisnoi is a formal witness.

83.

PW

79

Shri Rajneesh

Kumar

Gupta MM has conducted Test Identification

parade of accused Amar Deep Singh Gill @
Tony Gill and Alok Khanna
the

proceedings

Ex.PW79/B

respectively.
proceedings
Sidhartha

and has proved

He
in

has

and

also

respect

Vashisht

Ex.PW79/C

proved
of

Mannu

TIP

accused
Sharma

as

Ex.PW79/G.

84.

PW80

ASI

Nirbhay

Singh

is

is

formal witness.
85.

PW81

Insp.

S.S.

Gill

formal witness.
86.

PW82 SI K.P.Malik

is a formal

PW83 HC Devi Singh

is a formal

witness.
87.
witness.
88.

PW84

HC

Mukesh

Singh

is

formal witness.
89.

PW85 SI Pankaj Malik is a formal

witness.
90.

PW86 Jagan Nath Jha

is a formal

witness.
91.

PW87

formal witness.

Insp.

Raman

Lamba

is

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.23
92.

PW88 Shri O.S. Srivastava Senior

Scientific Officer is a formal witness.

93.

PW89

Dr.

G.D.

Gupta

Scientific Officer (Biology)

Principal

is a formal

witness.
94.

PW90

Sh.

C.K.Jain

Senior

Scientific Officer

is a formal witness.

95.

B.D.Dubey

PW91

SI

is a formal

witness.
96.

PW92 Inspector Durga Parshad

is

a formal witness.
97.

PW93 HC Prabhakaran is a formal

witness.
98.

PW94 SI Brijender Singh

is a

formal witness.
99.

PW95 Prem Sagar Manocha, Deputy

Director State Forensic Science Laboratory

is a formal witness.
100.

PW96 HC Chajju Ram MHCM

is a

formal witness.
101.

PW97

HC

Kishan

Chander

is

formal witness.
102.

PW98

Babu

Lal

is

formal

witness.

102.
has

PW99
brought

is Dr. Deepak Vats, who

the

patient Jessica

file

regarding

the

Lal at Apollo hospital.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.24
The file

Ex.PW99/1

shows that Jessica

was brought to hospital on 30th April. She

was attended by Dr. Pankaj Arora.

He has

proved the records of hospital. The dead

body of Jessica was handed over to police
station Mehrauli.

103.

PW 100 is

SI Sunil Kumar. He

has deposed that on receipt of DD no.41 A

he proceeded to the spot.

When he reached

at the spot SI Sharad Kumar and Ct. Meenu

Mathew

also reached there and they found

a black Tata Safari parked at the left

side

gate.

He

has

corroborated

the

testimony of PW78 SI Sharad Kumar.

He

recorded the statement of Shyan Munshi at

Ashlok hospital and sent the rukka to the
police
case.

station
On

for

inspection

cartridge

cases

possession.

He

registration

of

the

he

found

two

empty

which

he

took

into

prepared

the

inquest

papers. He handed over the dead body of

Jessica to her sister. He then came back
to the spot and was informed by SHO that
the

Black

lifted

colour

from

the

Tata
spot

Safari
and

the

has

been

same

is

registered in the name of Picadilly Agro

Industries and accused Sidhartha Vashisht

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.25
@ Mannu Sharma is the Director of the said
company.

He

seized

the

guest

list

Ex.PW24/A, collected post mortem report.

In his presence the SHO
Tony Gill and

arrested accused

Alok Khanna. Tata Sierra of

accused Alok Khanna was also seized by the

SHO

vide

memo

Ex.PW100/11.

Accused

Amardeep Singh Gill@ Tony Gill and accused

Alok

Khanna

were

taken

for

Test

Identification Parade before the MM. But

both

the

accused

persons

participate in the TIP.

Jhingan

was

Sidhartha

also

refused

Accused Amit

arrested.

Vashisht

to

Mannu

Accused
Sharma

refused to participate in the TIP and

also
led

the police party to places where he had

stayed

after

the

occurrence.

The

audio

tape along with the transcript was handed

over

to

the

SHO

by

SI

Bijender.

The

cassette was heard by the SHO and compared

the

same

seized

with

and

the

transcript

sealed

the

same

and

then

in

his

presence. Accused Shyam Sunder Sharma was

also

arrested.

accused Vikas

SHO

interrogated

the

Gill and Harvinder Chopra

and recorded their disclosure statements.

SHO

also

handed

over

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and accused Vikas

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.26
Gill for getting a petrol pump pointed out
by

them.

Accused

persons

pointed

out

petrol pump in the name and style of Amish

Enterprises

and

told

that

they

had

got

diesel filled up in a Ford car. He also

seized

the

photographs

of

accused

Alok

Khanna and Tony Gill. Accused Yograj was

also arrested and his contessa car which
was used by accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma during his period of escape
was also seized. He also went to NCRB to
find out as to whether any report of loss
or

theft

in

respect

of

.22bore

pistol

no.B-56943 U was lodged anywhere in India

as

the

said

weapon

was

used

in

the

commission of offence, computerized reply

received by him is Ex.PW43/B.

103.

PW101

Insp.

Surender

Kumar

Sharma is a formal witness.

104.

Prosecution has also examined

two court witnesses.

105.

CW1 is Dr. Rawel Singh, who has

prepared the transcription and translation

of

an

audio

tape

given

to

him

by

the

prosecution.
106.

CW2

is

HC

Ram

Dayal

who

is

Muharrar Record Keeper and has brought the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.27
original

FIR

register

from

containing FIR No.288/99.

PS

Mehrauli

After examining

101 Pws and two court witnesses CW1 and

CW2 the special PP closed the prosecution
evidence.
107.
Statements of all the accused
persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. All
the allegations of the prosecution were
put to the accused persons but they have
denied
all
the
allegations
of
the
prosecution and have stated that they are
innocent and have been falsely implicated
in this case.
Accused Alok Khanna has examined
one defence witness in his support.
DW1 RK Khanna is the father of
accused Alok Khanna. He has deposed that
police has taken photographs of his son
Alok Khanna and Amarjeet Singh Gill from
him and also took his son to police
station
where Amardeep Singh Gill was
also present. His son and Amardeep Singh
Gill were then taken to Patiala House
Court and from there they were sent to
Tihar Jail.
108.

Arguments heard.

109.
Ld. Special PP for the state has
submitted
that
the
accused
Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma was the owner of a
licensed pistol bearing number 5B-6943-Umake P Berreta of .22bore. The license of
the said pistol was issued to the accused
which is Ex.PW7/B and the accused has also
admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that the prosecution has proved

that the vehicle Tata Safari no.CH-01-W6535 which was used by the accused persons
for

going

to

the

spot

at

the

time

of

occurrence was registered in the name of

M/s

Picadilly

Agro

Industries

India

Limited, Sector 34, Chandigarh and accused

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.29
used

by

the

accused

persons

during

crime was Tata Sierra bearing number

26-H-4348

was

alloted to

the
HR-

Amardeep Singh

Gill @ Tony Gill accused by the Coca cola

company while another vehicle Tata Sierra
was alloted to Alok Khanna by the Cocacola
company in which both the accused persons
were working at the relevant time in the
year 1999.
at

the

He has further submitted that

relevant

time

accused

Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill was having mobile

phone number 9811100237 while accused Alok
Khanna

was

9811068169.

having

mobile

phone

number

These

mobile

phones

were

provided by their employers i.e. Hindustan

Cocacola Company
time.

He

has

to them at the relevant

further

telephone number 3782072

submitted

that

was installed at

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

father

of

residing.

accused

Vikas

Yadav

Accused Vikas Yadav

was

also used

to reside along with his father in the

year 1999 and he made telephone calls from
this telephone number which was alloted to
his father before and after the commission
of crime.
110.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that the Tata Safari no.CH-01-W-

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.30
6535 which was registered in the name of
M/s

Picadilly

Agro

Industries

India

limited which is a sugar mill in Karnal

and

which

Sidhartha

was

being

Vashisht,

used

Shyam

by

Sunder

accused
Sharma

and Harvinder Chopra all accused persons

in this case who were Directors of the
company

at

the

relevant

time.

These

accused persons have also seen using the

telephones of the Sugar Mill installed in
the

mill

bearing

47651,52,53

telephone

which

were

number

installed

at

Karnal at the time of occurrence. He has

further submitted that vehicle number DL3C-J-5241

was

also

used

by

the

accused

persons for hiding the accused Sidhartha

Vashisht & Others who have
murder
white

in

this

Mahindra

case.
Ford

committed the

This

vehicle

vehicle
and

it

was
has

been registered in the name of RHS Chopra

i.e. Raja Chopra accused.
111.

It is further submitted by ld.

Special PP that the place where incident

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.31
the

Authorities.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further submitted that on Thursday private

party used to be arranged in this Tamarind
court cafe.
i.e.
going

On

On the date of occurrence

29/4/99

on

at

the

Thursday

said

party

Restaurant

was

where

liquor was being served by the deceased

Jessica

Lal

and

Shyan

Munshi

who

were

working as bartenders.
112.
date

On the fateful day i.e. on the

of

deceased

occurrence
Jessica

i.e.

Lal

was

on

29/4/99

wearing

Blue

denim short and half sleeves white shirt

as deposed by PW29 Shahana Mukherjee. On
the

date

of

occurrence

Sidhartha Vashisht
with

other

the

accused

@ Mannu Sharma along

co-accused

persons

Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill, Alok Khanna

Vikas

Yadav

came

cafe. Accused

to

the

Tamarind

and
Court

Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu

Sharma asked for two pegs of whisky from

the waiter present in the Tamarind court
cafe

but

the

waiter

told

him

that

the

whisky was not available as the party was

over.

Thereafter

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma asked for liquor

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.32
him that the party was over and no liquor
was available with them.

Thereafter PW20

Beena Ramani who was also present there

and PW6 Malini Ramani who were present at
the spot heard two shots fired by someone.
One

shot was fired

in the

air and the

other shot was fired at Jessica Lal which

hit Jessica Lal near her left eye as a
result

of

Munshi

PW2

which
came

she

fell

running

down.
to

PW6

Shyan
Malini

Ramani and told her that Jessica Lal had

been shot at by someone.

She asked him to

make a call to police. She also told the

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

been

removed

to

the

hospital.

First of all the injured Jessica Lal was

taken to Ashlok hospital from there she
was shifted to Apollo hospital where she
was

declared

brought

dead

at

4.37am

as

per the statement of PW99 Deepak Vats. As

per the MLC

Ex.PW99/6 of Jessica Lal from

Apollo hospital she was shifted to AIIMS

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.33
the body of Jessica Lal at AIIMS hospital
by Dr. R.K.Sharma PW9.
PW9
conducted

is

post

Dr.

R.K.Sharma

mortem

on

the

who

has

body

of

deceased Jessica Lal. As per PW9 the cause

of death was head injury due to fire arm
injury which was ante mortem in nature.
The PM report prepared by PW9 is Ex.PW9/B.
He has further deposed that injuries no.3
to 6 are consequential injuries to injury
no.3

and

cause

injury

death,

in

no.3
the

was

sufficient

ordinary

course

to
of

nature.
111.

It is further proved on record

by the prosecution that Jessica Lal was

fired

upon

from

pistol

by

person

wearing T shirt at Tamarind Court Cafe. It

has also been proved on record that she
died

on

account

of

fire

arm

injury

received on her head.

113.
Special

It is further submitted by ld.

PP

that

all

the

three

eye

witnesses including PW2 Shyan Munshi have

categorically stated that they did not see
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
firing

at

Jessica

Lal.

Similarly

PW1

Deepak Bhojwani has also stated that he

did not see accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
firing a shot at Jessica Lal.
114.

Special

PP has further submitted

that the presence of Alok Khanna, Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and
the spot

Vikas Yadav at

has been proved on record by the

prosecution

witnesses

examined

in

this

case. PW2 Shyan Munshi has been declared

hostile

as

he

did

not

Sidhartha Vasishst @

identify

accused

Mannu Sharma to be

the person who fired a shot at Jessica

Lal. PW3 and PW4 have also turned hostile
and have not identified accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma as the person who
fired a shot at Jessica Lal.
115.

PW1

stated

Deepak

that

he

Bhojwani

had

not

has

seen

also

accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma firing a

shot at Jessica Lal but he confirmed the
presence

of

accused

persons

namely

Sidhartha Vashisht, Amardeep Singh Gill @

Tony Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav at
the spot at the
116.
has

time of occurrence.

He has further submitted that it

been

proved

on

record

beyond

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.35
reasonable

doubt

that

on

the

date

of

occurrence a Thursday party was going on

at

Tamarind court cafe. It has also been

proved

on

record

that

Sidhartha Vashisht,
Tony

Gill,

Alok

accused

persons

Amardeep Singh Gill @

Khanna

and

Vikas

Yadav

came to attend the party at Tamarind court

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

working as bartenders.

117.

It

has

also

been

proved

on

record that Jessica Lal was shot at by

someone

at

Tamarind

pistol which

court

cafe

from

resulted into her death.

a
He

has further stated that PW20 Beena Ramani

has stated that Shyan Munshi came running
to her who told her that Jessica Lal had
been shot at by someone and

she stopped

one

Vashisht

person

Mannu

namely

Sharma

who

Sidhartha
was

coming

along

with

Shyan Munshi and told him to give her the

gun

as she thought that he was carrying a

gun with him and he had fired a shot at

Jessica Lal. This was the feeling of Pw
Beena

Ramani

Sidhartha

and

Vashisht

she
@

felt
Mannu

that

accused

Sharma

must

have fired a shot at Jessica Lal so the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
and

none else who

Jessica Lal

has fired

a shot at

on the date of occurrence.

She has also deposed before the court that

other

accused

accused
were

persons

along

with

the

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill,

Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav who attended

the party along with accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. The Special PP

has

further

submitted

that

it

is

the

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

who killed Jessica Lal by firing a shot
from his pistol and that he is liable to
be convicted for committing the murder of
Jessica Lal.

The ld. Special PP

has

further submitted that these witnesses are

independent witnesses and they have got no
enmity with the accused persons. He has
further

submitted

that

Mailhott

has

deposed

also

PW24
that

George
Shyan

Munshi had told him that Jessica Lal has

been

shot

at

by

someone.

The

first

person who came out of the Tamarind court

cafe was Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.37
who was being followed by Beena Ramani his
wife.

He

has

also

tried

to

follow

Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu Sharma

but he

went away in some car.

He has also stated

that

Vashisht

beside

Sidhartha

Mannu

Sharma accused Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony

Gill, Alok Khanna and accused Vikas Yadav
were also present in the party.
118.

PW70

Rohit

Bal

has

confirmed

that he saw Beena Ramani was shouting at

some

person

and

she

was

running

behind

some person. He has also confirmed that

one gentleman wearing white T shirt had
asked the waiter to serve two drinks to
him.

He

had

also

asked

Jessica

Lal

to

serve two drinks to him but Jessica Lal

also refused to serve him drinks

on which

that person took out a pistol and shot at

Jessica Lal.
119.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that black Tata Safari bearing

no.CH-01-W-6535

was

Sidhartha Vashisht

used

by

accused

@ Mannu Sharma along

with other accused persons namely Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna for
coming

to

Tamarind

Cafe,

the

occurrence on the fateful day.

place

of

He has

further submitted that it has come in the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.38
statements of witnesses that this vehicle
was abandoned at the place of occurrence
and

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu

Sharma and three other accused ran away

after leaving the Tata Safari at the spot.
This Tata Safari was later on taken away
by accused Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill
and Vikas Yadav from the spot.

They came

in a white Tata Sierra vehicle and accused

Vikas Yadav drove the Tata Safari from the
place

of

there.

occurrence
He

has

and

further

ran

away

from

submitted

that

the constable on duty at the spot also

gave a danda blow on the black Tata Safari
and broke the window pane of the said car.
He has further submitted that the three
eye witnesses examined by the prosecution
namely PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and
PW4 Karan Rajput should not be believed by
the court as they have been won over by
the

accused

submitted
Amardeep

persons.

that
Singh

He

accused
Gill

has

further

Alok

Khanna,

Tony

Gill

and

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma refused

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.39
further submitted that as per disclosure
statement of accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu
used

Sharma
in

the

he

handed

over

commission

of

the

pistol

crime

to

RK

Sudan. And Ravi Kishan Sudan left India

for USA on 4/5/99 and he disposed of or
destroyed the pistol which was

used in

the commission of crime.

120.

Ld.

submitted

Special

that

all

PP

the

has

accused

further
persons

were in touch with each other after the

commission of crime either on mobile phone
or on landline phone as per statement of
PW 16 Shri Raj Narain, who has proved the
record of mobile phone of accused Amardeep
Singh

Gill @ Tony

shown that

Gill in

several telephone calls were

made from this number.

proved

which it is

by

PW16

Officer MTNL

Raj

Similarly it is
Narain,

Accounts

that STD calls have been

made from telephone number 3782072 which

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

of

accused

period

25/4/99

to

Vikas

Yadav

1/5/99

for

for
the

the

calls

made to Chandigarh at the telephone number

of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.
121.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.40
submitted

that

PW94

SI

Brijender

Singh

Joon has recorded the conversation between

PW 57 Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Soodan who
had

left

for

USA

on

4/5/99

and

the

conversation has been placed on record in

the form of CD between these two persons
but PW57 Ashok Dutt has turned hostile and
has stated that no conversation took place
between

him

and

Ravi

Krishan

Sudan

as

alleged by the police.

122.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that CW1 Dr. Ravel Singh

has

translated

Mr.

the

conversation

between

Sudan and proved that it was in Punjabi

dialect

and

he

has

translated

the

same

into Hindi and then into English and in

his statement he has stated that Mr. Sudan
has not used the word ''Shyamjee'' but has
used the word ''Sangli''.
123.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that this case was given wide

publicity in the media.

The court should

take

of

judicial

notice

the

report

appearing about this case in the newspaper

which

have

been

placed

on

record

by

Special PP.
124.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that remaining accused persons

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.41
Shyam

Sunder

Sharma,

Harvinder

Chopra,

Raja Chopra, Vikas Gill, Yograj Singh

are

also

for

liable

to

be

convicted

harbouring the accused Sidhartha Vashisht

@

Mannu

Sharma

after

the

commission

Special

PP

of

crime.
125.

Ld.

has

further

submitted that the Black Tata Safari was

registered in the name of Picadilly Agro
Industries

where

working as

Executive

Black

Tata

Harvinder

Safari

Chopra

Director
was

was

and the

assigned

to

Harvinder Chopra by the company.

126.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that police also seized a mobile

phone

of

accused

Yograj

Singh

and

also

seized the Contessa Car of accused Yograj

Singh

which

was

used

by

accused

Yograj

Singh for giving shelter and conveyance to

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.
He

has

Yograj

further
Singh

submitted
had

that

harboured

accused
accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma and he

is liable to be convicted u/s 212

IPC.

127.

further

Ld.

Special

PP

has

submitted that accused Harvinder Chopra,

Yograj Singh, Shyam Sunder Sharma

should

be convicted u/s 212 of IPC for harbouring

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.42
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
and

for

giving

food,

shelter

and

conveyance to accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu Sharma.
128.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that accused Sidhartha Vashisht

@ Mannu Sharma absconded immediately after
the occurrence and PW87 Insp. Raman Lamba
has

stated

that

he

had

gone

to

locate

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

on

3/5/99,

4/5/99

and

5/5/99

but

this

accused could not be apprehended at all

the

available

Sidhartha

addresses

Vashisht

of

Mannu

accused

Sharma.

5/5/99 he again went to Picadilly

On
hotel

Chandigarh

but could not locate accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

However,

on

Vashisht @

6/5/99

Mannu

accused

Sharma
Sidhartha

Mannu Sharma appeared before

the police at Patiala Tourist Bunglow at

Chandigarh and

he arrested the accused

and

arms

seized

his

license

vide

memo

Ex.PW.80/B. He has further submitted that

PW87 Raman Lamba SI had come to know about
the

involvement

of

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma on 5/5/99 from the

other IO regarding his involvement in the
commission

of

crime

as

the

police

had

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.43
arrested accused
Singh

Alok Khanna and Amardeep

Gill@Tony

Gill

and

from

their

disclosure statement the police had come

to know about the involvement of accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma in this
case.
129.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that PW101 Insp. SK Sharma has

deposed before the court that SI Brijender
Singh Joon had served a notice u/s 160
Cr.PC on Sh. DP Yadav to produce his son
Vikas Yadav before the police. On 13/5/99
Sh. DP Yadav came to the police station
and

told

that

whereabouts

of

he
his

did
son

not
Vikas

know

the

Yadav.

On

29.5.99 accused Vikas Yadav had appeared

before the police at police Head quarter
and

showed

the

anticipatory

bail

order

from the court. On 29/5/99 accused Vikas

Yadav

surrendered

V.K.Khanna

ld.

in

MM

the

and

court
the

ld.

of

Sh.

Court

admitted him to bail. He was given notice

to join the investigation by the IO in
this case. He was interrogated by the IO
and his disclosure statement Ex.PW100/24
was

recorded.

He

disclosed

that

he

had

handed over Tata Safari black colour to

one

Dhanraj

but

Dhanraj

could

not

be

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.44
arrested in this case and was declared PO.
Police also interrogated him as to where
he

had stayed after his disappearance and

it has come on record that he

stayed at

Shakti Resort Rajasthan and thereafter he

also stayed at Sariska Hotel at Rajasthan.
Accused

Vikas

Yadav

immediately after
inference
accused

may
that

commission

he

of

had

also

absconded

the occurrence and an

be

drawn

against

the

after

the

absconded

crime

and

he

should

be

convicted on this ground.

130.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that prosecution has been able

to prove that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma had fired a shot at Jessica
Lal as a result of which she later on died
in

the

hospital.

Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu Sharma is responsible for the murder

of Jessica Lal. He has further submitted
that accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

Sharma should be convicted for the offence

u/s 302/201/120B IPC and u/s 27 of the
Arms Act.
131.
submitted

Ld.

Special

that

PP

accused

has

further

Vikas

Yadav,

Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and

Alok

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.45
IPC as they all entered into a conspiracy
to destroy the evidence in this case. He
has further submitted that prosecution has
proved

that

accused

Harvinder

Chopra,

Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill, Yograj Singh, Raja

Chopra

have

Sidhartha

all

harboured

Vashisht

giving him

Mannu

the

accused

Sharma

by

food, conveyance and shelter

and therefore they should be convicted u/s

212

of IPC while accused Shyam Sunder

Sharma may be convicted u/s 201/212 IPC.

Ld. Special PP has relied upon

the following judgments:

(i) AIR 1957 SC 211 in Re Prasadi Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh.
(ii)

AIR 1978 SC 1091 in Re Inder Singh and

another Vs.Delhi Administration wherein it has

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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''.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.48
(v)Criminal Revision 110 of

(1976) 235 Delhi in

Re Balkishan Vs. State wherein it has been held

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

132.

Ld. Counsel for the accused has

submitted that the prosecution has failed

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.49
against

the

accused

persons.

He

has

submitted that all the three eye witnesses

examined in this case by the prosecution
have turned hostile.

The eye witnesses

are PW2 Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and

PW4 Karan Rajput.

All these three eye

witnesses have categorically stated that

they

did

not

see

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma firing a shot from

his pistol at Jessica Lal.

All three of

them were declared hostile and in their

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

Ld.

Counsel

submitted

that

for
the

accused

has

case

the

of

prosecution is that one person fired two

shots from one pistol.

One shot was fired

at the roof and the other shot was fired

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.50
two

empty

cartridges

were

taken

into

possession by the IO and were sent to the

FSL.

The

Ballistic

Expert

report

is

Ex.PW89/DB. In the said Ballistic Expert

report

it

cartridges
different

is

opined

have
arms

been
so

that

these

two

fired

from

two

the

theory

of

the

prosecution that both the shots were fired

from the same pistol stands contradicted
with the Ballistic expert report. So the
story of the prosecution that one person
had

fired

two

shots

has

also

been

falsified by the FSL report, the accused

persons

are,

therefore,

liable

to

be

acquitted on this ground alone.

134.

The counsel for accused persons

has further submitted that on the night of

4/5/5-99

accused Amardeep Singh Gill @

Tony Gill was arrested by the police. This

was

the

first

accused

arrested

in

this

case by the police and police recorded his

disclosure

statement

which

Ex.PW100/7.

is

disclosure statement

on

the
In

the

Khanna

morning
was

of

arrested

night

the

said

the names of other

accused persons had figured.

on

same

5/5/99
and

Consequently
accused
he

also

Alok
made

disclosure statement before the police and

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.51
police

also

seized

the

Tata

Sierra

car

from him. For the first time the names of

accused

persons

were

police

by

Amardeep

Khanna

on

the

disclosed

Singh

night

of

Gill

to

the

and

Alok

4/5/5-99.

On

5/5/99 notice was served on the father of

accused Sidhartha Vashist @ Mannu Sharma
by PW87 Insp. Raman Lamba to produce the
accused.

Consequently

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma surrendered before

the police on 6/5/99 at Chandigarh. After
his

arrest

the

police

recorded

his

disclosure statement. The police for the

first

time

had

come

to

know

from

the

disclosure statement of accused Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill & Alok Khanna about
the

involvement

Vashisht

of

accused

Sidhartha

on the night of 4/5/-5-99

and

on 5/5/99 the notice was served on the

father

of

Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu

Sharma. On 6/5/99 in response to the said

notice accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu
Sharma surrendered before the police.

The

accused at no point of time had absconded

from his house and he surrendered before
the police
served

immediately after notice was

on the father of the accused. So

the argument of the ld. Special PP that

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.

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
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
which

was

used

in

the

commission

of

offence. The police got the police remand

preponed to 15/5/99 as they
the

arm

recovered

from

failed to get

him.

So

very

important link in the story of prosecution

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.53
ground.
136.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that

even PW2 Shyan Munshi has

deposed before the court that two persons

had fired shots at the time of incident
from two different pistols.
had

One person

fired a shot in the roof while the

other person fired a shot at Jessica Lal.

He has denied that the accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma has fired both the
shots

one

in

Jessica Lal.
PW2

Shyan

the

and

another

at

The theory put forward by

Munshi

fired from

roof

that

two

persons

had

two different weapons stands

corroborated

from

Ballistic Experts.

the

evidence

of

The prosecution had

sent two fired cartridges recovered from

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

these

characteristics

they

opined

that these two cartridges were fired from

two
then

different
sent

weapons.

these

two

The

prosecution

cartridges

to

FSL

Jaipur and even the Ballistic expert at

Jaipur

also

opined

that

both

these

cartridge were of different size and they

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.54
were having different characteristics and
these two cartridges were fired from two
different

weapons.

reports support the

Shyan Munshi

So

both

the

FSL

version given by PW2

that two persons had fired

the shot from two different arms.

The

story of the prosecution that one person

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

whereas

the

Ballistic Expert report

137.

FSL

Jaipur

is Ex.PW95/2.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that PW2 Shyan Munshi has stated

that SI Sharad Kumar had come to him with
15

photographs

identify the

and

he

was

asked

to

accused persons from these

photographs who had come to Tamarind Cafe

on the date of occurrence and also about
the

accused

Jessica

Lal

who

had

but

he

fired
had

not

shot

at

identified

those photographs to be that of accused

persons
those

as these photographs were not of

accused

persons

who

had

come

to

Tamarind Cafe, on the night of occurrence.

138.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that PW2 Shyan Munshi has stated

that

he can neither speak Hindi nor he

knows how to write in Hindi.

He had made

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.55
statement to the police only in English
but

the

police

had

translated

his

statement into Hindi and same was not read

over to him before he signed the same and
he

signed

PW2

his

Shyan

statement

Munshi

has

in

good

stated

faith.

before

the

court that he and Jessica Lal were not

serving

liquor

at

the

29/4/99. Even PW23

said

party

on

Rouble Dunglay says

that Shyan Munshi always talked to him in

English

as

Shyan

Munshi

did

not

know

Hindi.
139.

The

further

counsel

submitted

for

that

the

accused

has

police

had

decided in the morning of 30/4/99 to frame

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
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

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma in this
case.

He had also come to know that black

Tata

Safari

belonged

to

found
Sidhartha

at

Tamarind

Vashisht

Cafe
Mannu

Sharma. So he had sent SI Pankaj Malik to

Chandigarh
Safari and

on 30/4/99 to secure the Tata

to arrest accused Sidhartha

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
in this case which means that on 30/4/99
itself

police

frame

the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu

Sharma

had

in

30/4/99 there

taken

this

decision

case.

Though

to

on

was no evidence available

with the police against accused Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma at all but PW101
Insp.

Surender

instructed by
frame

the

Kumar

Sharma

had

been

senior police officers to

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu Sharma in this case which is clear

from his evidence before the court.
140.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that the presence of PW30 Delhi

Home Guard Sharwan Kumar
the

night

of

at the spot on

29-30/4/99

is

doubtful

because he never went with the SHO PW101

Insp.

Surinder

recorded in

Kumar

DD no.40A

Sharma.

It

is

that at 2.20am the

Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar leaves the

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.57
away from the police station.
DD

no.40A

Guard

this

Sharwan

witness
Kumar

PW30
left

So as per
Delhi
the

Home

police

station at 2.20am for village Dera along

with copy of DD.

Whereas PW101 has stated

that he took Sharwan Kumar Delhi Home

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.58
appears that after seizing the vehicle at
Karnal the Delhi police in connivance with
the

UP

Noida

police

got

this

vehicle

seized by Noida police in order to show

that the said vehicle was seized by Noida
police and not by Delhi police at Karnal
on 30/4/99.
142.

Ld.

Counsel

further

submitted

for

that

accused
there

has

are

witnesses examined on the point of parking

of

black

Tata

Safari

and

about

its

presence at Qutub Colonnade at the time of

incident

and

its

removal

from

Qutub

Colonnade by the accused persons after the

incident.

These 5 witnesses are PW78 SI

Sharad Kumar, PW83 Devi Singh, PW100 S.I.

Sunil Kumar, PW101 Insp. Surender Sharma
and PW30 Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar.
He

has

further

pointed

out

that

PW78

Sharad Kumar has deposed before the court

that

his

statement

u/s

161

Cr.PC

was

recorded by the IO on 30/4/99 after the

sunset

at

the

police

station.

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC

In

his

he has nowhere

stated about the presence of Black Tata

Safari

at the spot i.e. Qutub Colonnade

nor he has stated about its removal by the

accused persons

from Qutub Colonnade in

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.59
his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. He
has deposed for the first time before the
court

about

these

improvement. He

facts

which

is

an

has further pointed out

that PW83 Devi Singh has deposed before

the court that his statement was recorded
by the police u/s 161 Cr.PC but in the
said statement he has nowhere stated about
the presence of Black Tata Safari at the
spot

i.e.

about

the

from

the

Qutub

Colonnade

removal
spot

by

of
the

nor

Black

he

Tata

accused.

says

Safari
He

has

stated for the first time in the court

which

is

Similarly

an

improvement

PW100

SI

made

Sunil

by

him.

Kumar

has

deposed before the court that when he went

to the spot he asked SI Sharad Kumar about
the removal of Black Tata Safari
accused

persons

from

the

spot

by the
but

SI

Sharad Kumar did not know about this fact

Since SI Sharad Kumar who had been present
at the spot at the relevant time

had no

knowledge about the presence of Black Tata

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

from Qutub Colonnade in

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

has deposed for the first time before the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.60
court

about these facts

improvement. He

which is an

has further pointed out

that PW8 Devi Singh

has deposed before

the court that his statement was recorded

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

the

removal

of

black

Tata

Safari

from the spot by the accused persons. He

has stated for the first time in the court
which

is

witness.

an

improvement

Similarly

made

PW100

by

has

the

deposed

before the court that when he went to the

spot he asked SI Sharad Kumar about the
removal

of

Black

accused

persons

Tata

from

Safari

the

by

spot

but

the
SI

Sharad Kumar did not know about this fact.

Since SI Sharad Kumar who had been present
at the spot at the relevant time

had no

knowledge about the presence of Black Tata

Safari at the spot it shows that

neither

the Black Tata Safari was present at the

spot

nor

accused

the

same

persons

as

was

removed

alleged.

by

the

PW100

SI

Sunil Kumar in the cross examination has

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.61
the

case

diary

in

the

court

and

after

looking at the first page he closed the

same and he told the court that he does
not

want to see

the case

diary

which

further confirms that there was no mention

of

Black

diary

as

Tata

Safari

alleged

by

even
SI

in

Sunil

the

case

Kumar

so

there was no question of presence of Black

Tata Safari at the spot or its removal by
the accused persons.
143.

It is further submitted by ld.

Counsel for the accused that PW30 Delhi

Home

Guard

Sharwan

Kumar

has

deposed

before the court that he had given the

information about
Tata

Safari

persons

to

and
one

the presence of Black

its

Head

removal

by

Constable

accused
who

was

present at Qutub Colonnade at 3.40-3.45am.

He

does not remember

if he

has met SI

Sharad Kumar at Qutub Colonnade while SI

Sharad Kumar claimed that he reached the
spot

in

the

morning

on

the

date

of

incident but PW30 Delhi Homeguard Sharwan

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

Ld.

Counsel

for

accused

has

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.62
further

submitted

that

Surender

Sharma

deposed

has

PW101

Insp.

before

the

court that when he came back at the spot

he found SI Sharad, SI Sunil Kumar and
Delhi Home guard PW30 Sharwan Kumar at the
spot and all of them told him about the
removal of Black Tata Safari from the spot
by

one

Sikh

gentleman

and

one

another

person.

145.

Ld.

Counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that PW47 Jitender Raj

has deposed before the court that he was
working as a Manager at Qutub Colonnade.
He was present in his room at the time of
incident
removing

and

he

helped

Bina

Ramani

in

the injured Jessica Lal to the

Ashlok

hospital.

He

came

back

Ashlok

hospital

to

Qutub

from

Colonnade

the
at

3.15am in the morning and at that time he

only found one guard of Qutub Colonnade
and one police gypsy.

He did not find any

police official guarding the spot. He has

further deposed that there was no black
Tata Safari present at Qutub Colonnade at
that time, nor he has stated about the
removal

of

Black

Tata

persons from the spot.

Safari

by

two

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.63
146.
further

Ld.

Counsel

submitted

for

that

accused

PW30

Delhi

has
Home

guard Sharwan Kumar has been introduced as

a

false witness in

this case.

In the

cross examination PW30 has admitted that

he is 27 years old. He was not eligible to
become

constable

as

he

was

not

Matriculate and for these two reasons he

was not eligible to

be appointed as a

constable.
147.

Ld.

further

Counsel

submitted

constable

one

for

that

for

should

accused
becoming
be

cross

examination

minimum

Matriculate and his age should be

18 to 21 years.

has

between

He has also stated in

that

he

has

never

applied for appointment as a constable in

the Delhi police. He was made a constable
in Delhi police after the registration of
this case and on the recommendation of the
IO of this case. It is further submitted
that PW30

Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar

was made constable out of the way although

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.64
Delhi police.
148.

Ld.

further

Counsel

submitted

foregoing
evident

that

discussions

that

Black

for

the

Tata

story

Safari

accused

has

in

view

the

it

has

of

at

of

become

presence

of

spot

was

the

introduced by the police and the story of

removal

of

Black

Tata

Safari

by

the

accused persons has also been introduced

by

the

police

implicate

the

in

order

accused

to

falsely

persons

in

this

case.
149.

Ld.

Counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that PW86 Jagan Nath Jha

was working as a waiter at Qutub Colonnade
restaurant on the night of incident. He
has deposed before the court that he was
working

as

waiter

at

the

time

of

incident. He had not seen any Black Tata

Safari at Qutub Colonnade on the night of
29-30/4/99.

There is no mention of Black

Tata Safari even in his statement u/s 161

Cr.PC. He has further deposed that on the
night

of

official

29/4/99

there

was

available

on

duty

no

police

at

Qutub

Colonnade and there was only guard of the

restaurant who was on duty at the spot.
150.

Ld.

Counsel

for

accused

has

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.65
further submitted that it has come in the
cross examination of SI B.D.Dubey PW91 of
PS

Sector 24 Noida

that

on 2.5.99 on

receipt of information at Police station

at Sector 24, Noida UP on telephone that
the vehicle involved in Jessica Lal murder
case was parked at NTPC township.
there

at

about

6.30pm

and

He went

seized

the

vehicle. He also conducted the search of

the

black

Tata

Safari

which

was

parked

there and he found one live cartridge of

.22 bore. In the cross examination he has
categorically stated that he did not find
any

broken

pieces

of

glass

inside

the

vehicle and there is no mention of the

broken pieces of glass in the seizure memo
Ex.PW101/1 vide which he has seized the
articles lying in the black Tata Safari.
He

has

further

deposed

that

when

he

reached back to the police station Noida

he found police of PS Mehrauli along with
media team present at the police station.
He

joined

the

police

officials

of

PS

Mehrauli in the investigation and recorded

their

statement.

Surender

Sharma

Whereas
has

deposed

court that on 2.5.99 he

senior

police

PW

101

Insp.

before

the

came to know from

officers

that

Black

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.66
Tata Safari wanted in this case had been
seized by the police of Sector 24, Noida
UP. On 3/5/99 he went to Noida and after
getting

the

orders

from

Magistrate Ghaziabad

the

Judicial

he was handed over

the articles seized by the police along

with

Tata

Safari

which

also

included

broken glass pieces which were found in

Black Tata Safari whereas SI B.D.Dubey has
stated that he had never handed over Black
Tata Safari
of glass

alongwith any broken pieces

seized in the car to Mehrauli

police on 3/5/99 but he handed over the

vehicle and articles only on 2/5/99. He
has

categorically

over

of

police

the

broken

of

PS

categorically
glass

denied

were

about

pieces

of

Mehrauli.

stated

that

recovered

handing
glass
He

no

from

has

pieces
Black

to

of

Tata

Safari nor the same were handed over by SI

Dubey to PW101.

The broken glass pieces

have been planted by the police in order

to falsely implicate the accused in this
case. He has also drawn my attention to
the application Ex.PW101/1 which was moved
by

Insp.

Magistrate

Surender
Gaziabad

Sharma
and

before
in

the
that

application he has only made request to

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.67
hand over the Tata Safari vehicle seized
by the UP police.

The application is made

on 3/5/99 and ld. Magistrate has issued

orders

for

releasing

only

Black

Tata

Safari No.CH-01-W-6535 to Insp. Surender

Sharma

and

no

other

articles

have

been

ordered to be released in the said order

dated

3/5/99.

Magistrate at

Since

the

Judicial

Gaziabad had only ordered

for the release of Black Tata Safari to

Insp. Surender Sharma PW101 so the police
of PS Sector 24 Noida was directed only to
release Black Tata Safari to the said Insp
and no other article was handed over to
the IO as deposed by him in this court
much less the pieces of glass as alleged
by

him. Even PW91

SI B.D.

Dubey of PS

Sector 24, Noida has no where stated that

he had recovered broken pieces of glass
from

Black Tata Safari, so the question

of handing over of Black Tata Safari along

with the broken pieces of glass does not
arise.

Nor

mentioned in
vide

which

seized
Safari.

by

the

pieces

glass

are

the seizure memo Ex.PW74/A

articles

SI
So

of

were

recovered

BD

Dubey

from

this

story

of

and

the

Tata

taking

into

possession broken pieces of glass by Insp.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.68
S.K. Sharma from the police of Noida has
been

concocted

and

planted

in

order

to

create false evidence against the accused

persons in this case and the same cannot
be believed to be true and trustworthy.
151.

Ld.

further
Kumar

Counsel

submitted

had

for

that

accused

PW100

SI

conducted

proceedings on 30/4/1999

has
Sunil

inquest
but he has not

mentioned about the presence of Black Tata

Safari

at

the

spot.

PW100

has

further

deposed that he had recorded the statement

of Delhi Home guard PW30 Sharwan Kumar as
soon

as

he

4.30am

about

Safari

from

deposed

reached
the
the

that

the

spot

removal
spot.

when

of
He

he

at

about

Black

Tata

has

further

recorded

the

statement of Delhi Home Guard PW30 Sharwan

Kumar the case was still u/s 307 IPC and
the information about the death of Jessica
Lal has not been received by him but the
perusal of the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of
Home Guard PW30 Sharwan Kumar

shows that

section 302/201 are mentioned on the top

of the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC.
152.

In the cross examination PW100

has also admitted that he had mentioned in

the

case

diary

about

the

details

of

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.69
presence of Black Tata Safari at the spot
and

its

removal

by

someone

from

there.

This witness was ordered to see the case

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

made

constable

in

Delhi

police

despite the fact that he was ineligible to

become

a constable as he was over age and

was under qualified. PW30 Delhi Home Guard

Sharwan Kumar was recruited as a constable
against rules so that he will depose in
favour

of

Delhi

Police

and

against

the

accused persons. So the testimony of PW30

has been purchased by Delhi Police. His
testimony

is

not

genuine

and

truthful

testimony.
153.

Counsel for accused has further

stated that prosecution has also failed to

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.70
Tata Safari bearing no.CH-01-W-6535. The
prosecution has also failed to prove that
this car was being used by accused Mannu
Sharma

at

the

relevant

time.

The

prosecution examined PW48 Shanti Swaroop

who

has

Black

deposed
Tata

before

Safari

the

court

that

to

M/s

belongs

Piccadilly Agro Industries Ltd. and this

car was alloted to Harvinder Chopra

who

was working as Executive Director of the

company at the relevant time.
Surender Sharma
examination
statement

of

PW101 Insp.

has admitted in the cross

that
any

he

did

witness

not

to

record

the

effect

that Mannu Sharma was using the Black Tata

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

using

Black

Tata

Safari

at

the

relevant time or at the time of incident.

So

the

prosecution

has

failed

that accused Mannu Sharma

to

prove

or any other

accused had come to the spot in Black Tata

Safari and there is no evidence to prove
about

the

removal

of the

same by the

accused persons from the spot.

154.
further

The

counsel

submitted

that

for

accused

has

prosecution

has

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.71
alleged that accused Mannu Sharma had been
using mobile phone no.9811096893 in order
to contact the other accused persons after
the commission of crime but it has not
been

proved

phone

on

belongs

witness

has

record
to

that

Mannu

been

this

Sharma

produced

to

mobile

nor
show

any
that

this phone was being used by Mannu Sharma.

The only evidence against the accused is
disclosure

statement

of

accused

Mannu

Sharma wherein he has stated that he has

been

using

the

aforesaid

mobile

phone.

PW101 Insp.Surender Sharma has stated that

the aforesaid mobile phone or its sim card
has not been
Sharma.

recovered from accused Mannu

Since

the

mobile

phone

and

sim

card has not been recovered from accused

in this case nor any evidence has been
produced by the prosecution to prove that
this phone was being used by accused Mannu
Sharma so it is unsafe to say that accused
Mannu

Sharma

phone

for

persons

using

contacting
from

Prosecution
mobile

was

has

phone

the

the

this
failed

said

other

mobile
to

no.9811096893

mobile
accused
phone.

connect
with

the
the

accused Mannu Sharma.

155.

The prosecution has examined PW1

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.72
Deepak

Bhojwani

who

claims

that

he

was

present at the spot in the said party at

the

time

of

incident

but

PW24

George

Mailhott has deposed before the court that

he had submitted a list of guests who had
attended the party on 29/4/99 at Tamarind
Cafe

at

Qutub

submitted

by

Colonnade.

him

to

The

the

list

police

is

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

name

of

Deepak

Bhojwani

mention at all.

does

not

find

PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has

also deposed before the court that he had

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

of

Jessica

Lal

with sisters and

deceased

but

PW

Sabrina Lal, who is sister of the deceased

Jessica Lal has categorically stated that
when she went to Ashlok hospital she met
few persons present there but she no where
mentioned the name of Deepak Bhojwani who
was

present

Deepak

there.

It

shows

that

PW1

Bhojwani was not present at the

spot on that day although he claims that

he had gone to Ashlok hospital after the
injured was removed to the said hospital.
PW1 Deepak

Bhojwani has further deposed

that

Ashlok

from

hospital

he

went

to

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.73
Apollo
he

hospital.

met

the

At

Apollo

police

and

hospital

he

gave

the

description of the person who was involved

in the commission of crime to the police.
He

has

Doctor

further

deposed

that

declared

Jessica

Lal

after
as

the

dead

he

went to his house and before going to his

house he gave all the relevant information
to the police whereas PW100 SI Sunil Kumar
has

deposed

before

the

court

that

at

5.35am he got the DD regarding death of

Jessica Lal

and he sent SI Sharad Kumar

and SI Rishi Pal to Apollo hospital. This

means that these two policemen must have
reached
7am.PW

the
78

Apollo

SI

hospital

Sharad

Kumar

at

has

about
nowhere

deposed that he met Deepak Bhojwani at the

hospital

or

that

Deepak

Bhojwani

told

anything about Mannu Sharma to him.

PW29

Shahana Mukherjee has also deposed before

the court that she did not see the police
at the Apollo hospital although she
police

at

Ashlok

hospital.

met

Similarly

Sabrina Lal PW73 has deposed that police

was

not

present

at

Apollo

hospital

although she met police at Ashlok hospital

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.74
police at Apollo hospital and had told the
police about the facts of the case and
about

the

persons.
Apollo

description

Since

the

hospital

of

the

accused

police

had

reached

7am

so

only

after

the

question of meeting Deepak Bhojwani with

the

police

at

the

question

and

the

Bhojwani

seems

hospital

is

testimony

to

untrustworthy. PW92

be

out

of

of

Deepak

unreliable

and

ACP Durga Prasad has

also deposed before the court that name of

Deepak Bhojwani was not found in the list
Ex.PW24/A

but

interrogation

of

it

occurred

during

some

witnesses.

The

police recorded the statement of PW Deepak

Bhojwani on 14/5/99 i.e. After 15 days of
the occurrence.

Since this witness was

known to the family of deceased so he was

introduced later on as a false witness in
order

to

persons.

falsely

implicate

the

accused

It has come on record that PW1

Deepak Bhojwani has been summoned by the

police at the police station on 14/5/99
and on that day accused Mannu Sharma was
also on police remand and was present in
the police station. This accused was shown
to

Deepak

introduced

Bhojwani
as

who

witness

was
in

later
this

on

case.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.75
Moreover the

photographs of the accused

were published

in the leading newspaper

dated 7/5/99 of Tribune so the conducting

of TIP of accused after the publication of
photographs

in

meaningless.

the

The

newspaper

police

has

is

also

not

given any satisfactory explanation as to

why statement of PW1 Deepak Bhojwani was
recorded after 15 days of the occurrence.
PW1

Deepak

Bhojwani

has

made

several

improvements in the statement made before

the

court

so

his

statement

believed to be trustworthy.

cannot

be

PW1 Deepak

Bhojwani has stated that he met accused

Mannu Sharma at 1am at Tamarind court and
in 15 minutes he heard about the firing
of the shots while this incident had taken
place after 2am.
put

to

PW1

identify

by

A leading question was

Special

PP

if

he

can

2-3 persons accompanying accused

Mannu Sharma and PW1 gave the names of

Tony

Gill

and

Alok

Khanna.

This

is

an

improvement in his statement made by him

before the court over the statement made
to

the

police

evidence of

u/s

161

Cr.PC

So

the

PW1 is not trustworthy and

same is liable to be rejected.

156.

Counsel for accused has further

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.76
submitted that PW6 Ms. Malini Ramani has
deposed that the

person who had asked for

two drinks from her and Jessica Lal just

looks like Sidhartha Vashisht.
identification in the
the

cross

This is no

eyes of law.

examination

she

has

In

admitted

that she had seen accused Mannu Sharma

in

the police station. She has also admitted

in the cross examination that photograph
of the accused Mannu Sharma was shown to
her between

1/5/99 to 5/5/99.

If the

photograph of accused has been shown to

the accused before holding TIP of accused
then

the

conducting

of

TIP

of

accused

becomes meaningless. PW6 has also admitted

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

at

the interrogation centre. So the refusal

to join the TIP by accused Mannu Sharma is
justified.
her

She has further stated that

statements were recorded

dates

on several

by police which were signed by her

but ld. Special PP has told the court that

there are only two statements of Malini
Ramani

on the record

and

other statement on record.

there is no

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.77
157.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

PW20

Beena

Ramani

has

stated before the court that Jessica Lal

was standing along

with

some person when

she heard one shot and a moment later she

heard

another

shot

being

fired

Shyan

Munshi came to her along with one more

person and told her that Jessica Lal had
been shot. She stopped the companion of
Shyan

Munshi,

she

has

pointed

out

that

accused Sidhartha Vashisht was some what

like that person. She has again deposed
that

it

Sidhartha

does

not

Vashisht

satisfy
is

the

her
same

that
person

which means that Sidhartha Vashisht is not

the same person who was accompanying Shyan
Munshi whom she had stopped at that time.
If we read the statement of Beena Ramani
PW20 in between the lines it is clear that
she

has

categorically

stated

that

Sidhartha Vashisht is not the same person

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

also

with

him.

She

has

further

deposed that she was at the stairs of the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.78
restaurant when she heard two shots and
she saw Jessica Lal falling on the ground.
So the evidence of PW20 Beena Ramani is of
no help to the prosecution.
158.

Ld.

Counsel

further

submitted

for

accused

that

PW24

has

George

Mailhott has deposed before the court that

he was present at Tamarind cafe

when he

heard two shots upon which he entered the

Tamarind

cafe

chasing a

and

he

saw

Beena

Ramani

person inside the restaurant.

He, thereafter went to the gate outside to

look for the police.
159.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

accused

George

Mailhott

, Beena Ramani and Malini Ramani were also

booked

by

the

prosecution

Excise

Act and a deal was struck between

the prosecution
that

if

under

the

and the accused persons

they

help

them

in

investigation then the prosecution

the
will

help them in getting a lenient view in the

Excise Act case against them. Examination
in

chief

17/10/2001
18/10/2001.

of

PW24

and
Ld.

was

started

on

was

concluded

on

SPP

had

an

filed

application for early hearing and for preponing the Excise Act case filed by them

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.79
against the aforesaid accused persons and
that case was fixed for 2/2/2002.

This

application was heard by MM on 31/10/2001

and the case was preponed to 24/11/2001.
On

24/11/2001

adjourned to
all

the

Mailhot,

the

case

12/12/2001.

accused
Malini

again

On 12/12/2001

persons
Ramani

was

namely

and

George

Bina

Ramani

pleaded guilty and they were let off after

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

accused

On account of this deal

persons

and

prosecution

all the three witnesses have deposed in

favour

of

the

prosecution

accused persons and

against

the

PW24 George Mailhott

has admitted in the cross examination that

excise case was pending against him and he
had asked his lawyer to get it preponed.

160.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that PW 24 George Mailhott was

not present at the time of this incident
and

he

has

been

examined

prosecution as a false

by

the

witness. It is

stated that PW86 has deposed before the

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.80
restaurant Qutub Colonnade after Jessica
Lal had been removed to the hospital. PW
46

Madan

Kumar

who

restaurant has

was

waiter

in

the

also deposed that George

Mailhott left at 12.30 night and he did

not see

George Mailhott thereafter at the

restaurant

nor

he

saw

George

Mailhott

present at the time of this incident.

161.

It is further submitted by ld.

Counsel

for

cartridges

the

accused

recovered

from

that
the

the

spot

of

crime were having a word 'c' on the cap of

each

cartridge

and

the

same

was

manufactured by CCI company of USA whereas

the prosecution
Sidhartha

has proved that accused

Vashisht

had

purchased

25

cartridges of make KF from Sonu Gun house

Haryana on 4/2/99 at Ambala.

These 25

rounds were manufactured at Kirki Factory

in India as KF was written on the cap of
the shell and KF stands for Kirki factory.
It

has

come

in

the

evidence

of

Naveen

Chopra PW7 that all these rounds were made

in India

and were manufactured in Kirki

factory. They have no authority to sell

cartridges
cartridges

which
which

are

foreign

were

used

made.

The

in

the

commission of crime were manufactured by

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.81
CCI company of USA.

This fact has been

established by the CFSL expert namely PW95

Prem Sagar Minocha who was examined in the
court and he categorically stated that the
cartridges which were sent for analysis to
the CFSL were having mark 'C' on its cap
and these were manufactured by CCI company
of USA which means that cartridges which
were used in the commission of crime were
neither

purchased

by

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht at any point of time nor were

used by him in the commission of crime in
this case.

162.

It

is

further

submitted

by

counsel for the accused that PW87 Insp.

Raman Lamba has deposed before the court
that on 6/5/99 accused had handed

over

the arms licence to him which was seized

vide memo Ex.PW80/B. This memo does not
bear

the

signatures

of

Harish

Ghai

advocate who was present when the accused

was
Ghai

produced
even

accused

signed

of

but

the

arms

signed by Mr.Ghai.

the
the

Sidhartha

Ex,.PW80/A
seizure

before

police
arrest

and

Mr.

memo

of

Vashisht

which

is

memo

regard

to

licence

with
has

not

been

PW87 has stated that

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.82
Harish

Ghai

had

refused

to

sign

the

seizure memo whereas PW80 SI Nirbhay Singh

has stated that only Insp. Raman Lamba can
explain

as

to

why

Harish

Ghai

had

not

signed the seizure memo but he does not

remember

anything.

It

is

very

evasive

reply given by PW87 and it shows that the

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

Ld.

Counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that arms licence which

was seized by
deposited

Insp. Raman Lamba

had been

along with other articles on

6/5/99 seized

from accused Mannu Sharma

with the malkhana muharir of PS Mehrauli

but PW96 HC Chajju Ram Malkhana Muharir
has

stated

deposited

that
with

Insp.
him

on

Raman

Lamba

had

only

one

6/5/99

purse containing his photo, diary, video

cassette etc. but there is no mention of
deposit

of

arm

licence

in

the

malkhana

register having been deposited on 6/5/99

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.83
by Insp. Raman Lamba on 6/5/99.
164.

It is further submitted by ld.

Counsel for the accused that police has

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt

and

accused

the

accused

persons

are

persons.
liable

The
to

be

acquitted.
165.

It is further submitted by ld.

Counsel for accused that PW94 SI Brijender

Singh

has been examined by the police who

has deposed that he had taken Ashok Dutt

to the telephone booth and Ashok Dutt had
a talk to Ravinder Sudan @ Titoo at USA
and he made three telephone calls and had
a

detailed

conversation

with

him

with

regard to the pistol which was handed over

to him by the accused Mannu Sharma which
was

used

Accused

in

the

Ravinder

commission
Sudan

of

Titu

crime.

told

him

that the said pistol was with Shyam Sunder

Sharma

but

witness

has

verified

as

in

cross

stated
to

examination
that

whether

he
the

had

this
not

telephone

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

name of Ravinder Sudan at USA or not.
he

had

made

enquiry

about

the

Nor
other

telephone number bearing no.001-7184768403

about

its

ownership

and

about

its

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.84
installation

at

the

house

of

Ravinder

Sudan. So it has not been proved on record

that the telephone which was dialed from
India to America was in fact installed in
the name of Ravinder Sudan or not. In the
cross examination PW94 SI Brijender Singh
has

further

stated

that

there

is

no

documentary proof to show that the phone

of

the

person

in

America

was

that

of

Ravinder Sudan @ Titu as the audio tape

was not sent for examination to CFSL to
prove that the said phone voice belonged
to Ravinder Sudan @ Titu.
proved

on

America
not.

record

was

that

actually

So it is not

person

called

in

Ravinder

Sudan

or

PW57 Ashok Dutt who had dialed the

telephone
hostile

at
and

America
has

has

stated

also

that

turned

he

never

dialed any telephone at America and he had

not talked with any Ravinder Sudan @ Titu.
166.

It is further submitted by ld.

Counsel for the accused that there is not

even

an

iota

of

evidence

accused persons which can

with

the

commission

of

against

the

connect them
crime.

So

the

accused persons are, therefore, liable to

be acquitted.
167.

It is further submitted by ld.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.85
Counsel for accused Vikas Yadav that there
is no force in the arguments advanced by
ld. Special PP that accused Vikas Yadav
had

absconded

immediately

commission

of

jurisdiction

of

offence
police.

after

the

from

the

PW

27

Pratap

Malik has stated that accused Vikas Yadav

is one of the Directors in the company
namely Yadu Overseas Limited which has got
its

registered

office

at

Delhi

and

its

place of business is also in Imphal and

other North East states.
Yadav

is

one

of

the

Accused Vikas

Director

of

the

company and he had gone to Manipur Imphal

in

connection

with

the

business

of

the

company. When he came to know about his

involvement in this case he applied for
anticipatory bail in the court of law at
Imphal

and

he

was

granted

anticipatory

bail by the said court. However on 26/5/99

the

Gauhati

High

Court

stayed

the

bail

order granted by the court at Imphal on

29/5/99. The accused Vikas Yadav came to
Delhi and he surrendered before the court
of MM New Delhi. Ld. Court of MM New Delhi
granted

him bail in

this case.

On an

application moved by the prosecution, the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cancelled the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.86
bail

granted to accused Vikas Yadav on

7/7/99.

On 7/7/99 itself accused Vikas

Yadav surrendered before

New

Delhi.

Thereafter

court of Ld. MM
a

Special

Leave

Petition was filed by the accused before

Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed
on 13/8/99.

However the Hon'ble Supreme

Court ordered him to apply for fresh bail

before Sessions Court. He approached the
Sessions Court and he was granted bail by
the

Sessions

Court

thereafter.

At

no

point of time the accused has absconded

from the jurisdiction of the police and
the

court.

Rather

he

had

applied

for

anticipatory bail before the court of law

when he came to know about his involvement
in

this

case

so

the

arguments

of

ld.

Special PP on this point is without any

basis.
168.
Yadav

Ld.
has

Counsel

further

for

accused

submitted

that

Vikas
PW20

Beena Ramani has deposed before the court

that
Gill,

she

thinks

Alok

accused

Khanna

and

Amardeep

Vikas

Yadav

Singh
were

also present along with accused Sidhartha

Vashisht

in

the

party

incident

at

the

time

on
of

the

night

of

commission

of

offence. But she is not sure about the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.87
presence

of

all

these

three

accused

persons. She has further deposed in the

cross examination that she had seen the
photographs

of

persons

the

in

all

the

three

newspaper

Television. Ld.

and

accused
in

the

Counsel for accused has

further submitted that

this incident took

place on the night of 29/4/99 while PW

Beena Ramani

identified

accused Vikas

Yadav for the first time on 15.10.01 i.e.

after

and

half

identification

by

PW20

years.
of

the

This
accused

persons in the court after 2 and a half

years is no identification in the eyes of
law as nobody can remember the identity of
a person after 2 and a half years

if one

had only a glimpse of those persons for a

very short period about 2 and a half years
back. Such an identification is bound to
be rejected.
169.
Yadav

Ld.
has

Counsel

further

for

accused

submitted

that

Vikas
PW30

Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar has made

lot of improvements in his statement made
before the court.

170.

Ld.

Counsel

attention towards

has

drawn

my

the statement of PW30

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.88
Sharwan Kumar has deposed before the court
that he had told before the police that 34 vehicles were standing on one side of
the

road

Safari

while

was

portion

one

vehicle

standing

was

got

Black

Tata

separately.

confronted

This

with

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

his

it was

not so recorded.
171.

PW30

has

further

deposed

before the court that he had checked up

all

the

vehicles

and

locked,

This

portion

confronted

with

his

Cr.PC wherein
172.
the

they

were

was

found

also

got

u/s

161

statement

it was not so recorded.

PW30 has further deposed before

court

that

there

was

light

at

the

place where black Tata Safari was parked,

this portion was
statement

got confronted with

u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

his

it was

not so recorded.
173.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he had told the police that

he

had

police

joined
station,

confronted
Cr.PC
174.

with

the

SHO

this
his

at

the

gate

of

portion

was

got

statement

u/s

161

wherein it was not so recorded.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he has told the police that

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.89
he

was

instructed

should

remove

any

by

SHO

vehicle

that
from

nobody
there,

this portion was got confronted with his

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it was not
so recorded.
175.

PW 30 has further deposed before

the court that he had stated before the

police that SHO had left the spot leaving
him

at

the

confronted

spot,
with

Cr.PC wherein
176.

this

his

portion

statement

was

got

u/s

161

it was not so recorded.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he had stated before the

police that vehicle Tata Siera came slowly
and took a U-turn.
confronted

with

Cr.PC wherein
177.

his

This portion was got

statement

u/s

161

it was not so recorded.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he had told the police that

Tata
with

Safari
a

key,

confronted
Cr.PC

was

with

wherein

attempted

to

be

this

portion

his

statement

the

word

key

opened

was

got

u/s

161

was

not

recorded.
178.

PW30 has further deposed before

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.90
forcibly

and

portion

was

entered
got

the

vehicle,this

confronted

with

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

his

it was

not so recorded.
179.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he had told

that

the

Yadav

photographs

and

other

of

the police
accused

accused

Vikas

persons

had

appeared in print media as well as visual

media.
with

This portion was

got confronted

his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

it was not so recorded.

180.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he had told

that

he

does

officers

not

were

know

present

how

the police
many

police

inside

Qutub

Colonnade at that time, this portion was

got confronted with his statement u/s 161
Cr.PC wherein it was
181.

not so recorded.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he had told the police that

at

the

time

of

removal

of

Black

Tata

Safari from the spot one Head Constable

was present there but he does not know the
name of that Head Constable nor does he
know
come,

from

which

this

with his

police

portion

was

station
got

he

had

confronted

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.91
it was not so recorded.
182.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he had told

the police

that he does not know if actually glass of

Black Tata Safari was broken or not. He
had not handed over the danda used by him
which

he

struck

on

the

window

pane

Black Tata Safari to the police.

danda

was

evidence

very

and

IO

important

should

have

of

This

piece

of

seized

the

same and sent it to CFSL to prove that

this danda was used in striking on the
window

pane

portion

of

was

Black
got

Tata

Safari,

confronted

this

with

his

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

so recorded.
183.

PW30 has further deposed before

the court that he had told the police that

when he was appointed as a constable in
the

Delhi

police

appeared

in

any

admitted

that

he

no

advertisement

newspaper.
was

not

He

had

has

also

eligible

to

become a constable. He was under qualified

and

overage.

So

the

evidence

of

this

witness has been purchased by Delhi Police

in order to falsely implicate the accused
persons in this case.
184.

Ld.

Counsel

for

accused

Vikas

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.92
Yadav has further submitted that TIP of
accused Vikas Yadav was not got conducted
by

the

guard

prosecution.

However

PW30

Home

Sharwan Kumar has submitted that on

24/5/99 he had picked up the photographs

of

accused

Gill and
shown

Vikas

Yadav,

Amardeep

Singh

Alok Khanna from the photographs

to

him

by

the

IO.

This

is

no

identification in the eyes of law.

185.

Counsel for accused has further

stated that PW90 C.K.Jain expert CFSL New

Delhi has been examined and he has deposed
before the court in his cross examination
that he had not received glass pieces for
conducting
Monogram

examination
S2

and

S1

of

are

the
of

the

same.
same

company. He has not examined the vehicle

from

where

recovered,

the
he

glass
cannot

pieces
say

have
from

been
which

vehicle the glass pieces have been taken.

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

Counsel for accused has further

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.93
from

Black

Tata

Safari

seized

by

him

although he has admitted that he had come

to know that this vehicle was involved in
the murder of Jessica Lal.

Had he seized

the chance prints from Black Tata Safari

this

would

available
accused

have
with

been
the

persons

deliberately

best

police

in

did

the

this

not

evidence

to

fix

case

lift

the

but

the

they

chance

prints from the vehicle because they knew

that

this

accused

vehicle

persons

was

in

not

the

used

by

the

commission

of

offence.
187.

Counsel for accused Vikas Yadav

has further submitted that

has

examined

PW72

on

prosecution
the

point

of

absconsion of accused Vikas Yadav from his

house but PW72 Lal Singh who is Deputy
Manager

in

Sariska

categorically

stated

Palace
that

hotel

accused

has
Vikas

Yadav had never stayed in Sariska Palace

hotel on 9th and 10th May 1999.
PW77
before

Gajender
the

Singh

court

that

has

Similarly

also

Vikas

deposed

Yadav

had

never stayed in Sariska Palace Hotel. Both

these witnesses
have

not

prosecution.

have turned hostile and

supported

the

case

of

Similarly PW54 Varun Shah

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.94
has also categorically stated that he was
working as a Manager at

Shakti Resort and

one Suresh Shekhar had visited the resort

on

10/5/99.

He

has

denied

that

accused

Vikas Yadav had stayed at Shakti resort on

the said day.
188.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that PW81 Insp.SS Gill who is

part

IO

in

this

against the
stayed

at

case

has

only

deposed

accused Vikas Yadav that he

Shakti

Tourist

complex

on

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

cogent evidence
189.

in this regard.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that PW100 SI Sunil Kumar has

deposed that he had not
near

the

Qutub

put any barricade

Colonnade

so

that

the

vehicle could be checked and stopped while

leaving
stated

Qutub
that

Colonnade.
accused

He

Vikas

has

also

Yadav

was

interrogated at PS Mehrauli and he had not

been taken to any interrogation center at
Anti

terrorist

whereas PW101

center

at

Lodhi

Colony

Surender Kumar Sharma has

stated that accused Vikas Yadav was taken

to interrogation center at Lodhi Colony.
This is a very serious contradiction which
has

come

on

record

with

regard

to

the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.95
place

of

interrogation

of

the

accused

Vikas Yadav.

190.

Ld.

Counsel

further

submitted

for

accused

that

PW101

has
Insp.

Surender Kumar Sharma IO has not seized

the lathi which was used by PW30 Delhi
Home Guard, Sharwan Kumar with which he
had broken the window pane of Black Tata
Safari.
191.

Ld.

further

Counsel

submitted

for

that

accused

PW101

has

Surender

Kumar Sharma claims that he had sent a

message
been

about

taken

Black

away

by

Tata
two

Safari
persons

having
to

PCR

through Duty officer but no such message

has been sent to the PCR as is apparent
from the

evidence.

192.

Ld

further

counsel

submitted

for

that

accused

PW101

has

has
not

collected any record regarding flashing of

message of Black Tata Safari having been
taken away by two persons. However, PW101
has

stated

that

message

was

flashed

about Black Tata Safari only giving the

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.96
not been proved by any person in whose
handwriting
which

the

entry

was

made

and

in

DD register it was made.

193.

Ld

counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that PW101 has admitted

that he did not record statement of any
witness

to

the

brought

Black

effect

Tata

as

Safari

to
to

who
the

had
Qutub

Colonnade. So it has not been proved on

record that

accused persons had brought

Black Tata Safari at Qutub Colonnade

194.
further

Ld

counsel

submitted

for

that

accused

PW13

ASI

has

Kartar

Singh from PS Mehrauli has been examined

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

8am. There

is no reference of any Sardarjee or any

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

breaking

regarding

removal

of
of

window
Black

pane

Tata

and

Safari

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.97
have been introduced by the IO in order to
falsely implicate the accused persons in
this case.
195.

Ld

Chopra has
IPC

for

providing

counsel

for

accused

Raja

submitted that charge u/s 212

harbouring
the

the

vehicle

persons was framed

accused
to

the

and

for

accused

against this accused

but all the three witnesses examined by

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

PW71 Harminder

Singh has categorically stated that he was

working at Petrol pump and no vehicle had
come to take petrol on the relevant day
nor any vehicle had broken down at the
petrol
the

pump.

accused

Raja

So the charge against

Chopra

has

not

been

proved by the prosecution.

196.

Ld. counsel for accused Amardeep

Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna has

submitted
Manager

that
at

they

Cocacola

were

working

factory

at

as
the

relevant time. The only witness who could

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.98
have deposed anything against accused Alok
Khanna was PW Dinesh Kumar but he was not
produced by the prosecution in the court
so the charge framed against Alok Khanna
has

not

been

proved

on

record

by

the

prosecution.
197.

Ld

counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that accused Alok Khanna

and accused

Sidhartha Vashisht were not

even known to each other prior to the date

of occurrence.
this

case

He has been implicated in

only

because

he

was

working

along with accused Amardeep Singh Gill as

Manager at Coca Cola company.
198.

Ld

counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that PW1 Deepak Bhojwani

has

stated

in

his

examination

in

chief

before the court that accused Alok Khanna

had

accompanied accused Tony Gill at the

place

of

examination

occurrence.
he

states

In
that

his
he

cross

does

not

remember if he had told the police that he

would be able to identify the person who
had
This

accompanied
portion

confronted

of

with

Cr.PC wherein

Tony
the
his

Gill

at

the

spot.

statement

was

got

statement

u/s

161

it was not so recorded.

So

PW1 has made statement in the court by

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.99
saying

for

the

first

time

that

accused

Alok Khanna was accompanying accused Tony

Gill at the relevant time. This statement
has no value in the eyes of law and this
statement is bound to be rejected.

199.

Ld

counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that car Tata Siera used

by the accused persons for going to the
spot

has

not

been

connected

with

the

accused Alok Khanna as no car number of

Tata

Sierra

has

been

given

by

any

witness. So this evidence of prosecution

that he had provided Tata Sierra car to
the accused persons Vikas Yadav and Tony
Gill for going to the spot also does not
stand proved.
200.
further

Ld.

counsel

submitted

for

that

accused

even

if

it

has
is

presumed for the sake of arguments that

accused

Alok

Khanna

was

present

in

the

party still he is not connected with the

commission

of

crime

as

no

overtact

shown to have been performed by

is

accused

Alok Khanna in the commission of offence

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

Ld.

counsel

for

accused

has

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.100
further

submitted

accused

Alok

accused

had

jurisdiction

that

Khanna
not
of

conduct
also

run

shows

away

police.

of

the
that

from

When

the

police

visited his house he was available at his

house. It also proves that accused is not
involved

in

the

commission

of

crime

at

all.
202.

Ld.

counsel

for

further submitted that

accused

has

even otherwise the

witnesses examined by the prosecution are

highly interested witnesses.
203.

PW1 Deepak Bhojwani is a highly

interested witness as he has stated before

the court that Jessica Lal was friendly
with him for 5-6 years and he went to the
house of Jessica Lal on 30/4/99 and on
1/5/99 to pay his condolences.
been

introduced

prosecution

as

because

witness

his

name

He has
by

the

does

not

figure in the FIR Ex.Pw2/A His name is

also not mentioned in the list of guests
ExPW24/A given by George Mailhott.

This

list contained the names of those persons

who had attended the Thursday party on the
night of occurrence. Nor his name has been
mentioned in the MLC of deceased Jessica
Lal.

This witness claims that he was very

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.101
close to Jessica Lal then he should have
lifted the injured to the car for taking
her

to

the

hospital

which

should

have

proved that he was present at the spot at

the time of occurrence.

PW Beena Ramani,

Malini Ramani and George Mailhott who were

known to this witness have nowhere
in

their

present

statements

at

the

that

party

PW1

stated

although

was
he

also
was

known to them.

204.

Ld.

counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that PW20 Beena Ramani

is also a highly interested witness. She
has made substantial improvements in her
statement made by her in the court over
the

statement

made

by

her

before

the

police. She has deposed that Jessica Lal

was friend of her daughter Malini Ramani
and used to help her daughter at the party
organised
Jessica

at
Lal

Qutub
was

Colonnade

helping

her

and

that

daughter

Malini Ramani on that night in the party.

205.

Ld

counsel

for

accused

has

further submitted that PW George Mailhott

has

stated

Sardarjee

who

that
came

he

cannot

along

with

identify
accused

persons at Qutub Colonnade because he had

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.102
seen him only for a short duration.
if

Amardeep

were

Singh

Gill

and

Alok

Even
Khanna

present at the spot at Tamarind Cafe

on the night of occurrence but there is no

allegation that they had entered into a
conspiracy to murder Jessica Lal nor any
such charge has been framed against them.
Their presence simplicitor

at the spot is

of no help to the prosecution. Nor does it

prove

that

they

are

involved

in

the

accused

has

commission of crime in any manner.

206.

Ld.

counsel

further

submitted

for

that

PW1

has

made

substantial improvement in the statement

made

by

him

in

the

court

over

the

statement made by him before the police.

In the court he has stated that one tall
Sikh gentleman
him

something.

behind Mannu Sharma told

This

portion

was

got

confronted with his statement recorded u/s

161 Cr.PC wherein it was not so recorded
by the police.

He has further deposed

that he can identify 2-3 friends of Mannu

Sharma

with

Sharma

had

statement

whom

Tony

Gill

gone,

this

portion

was

got

confronted

and

Mannu
of

the

with

his

statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

it was not so recorded by the police. He

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.103
has

further

deposed

that

he

does

not

remember if he had told the police that he

will be able to identify those persons who
were

accompanying

portion

was

Mannu

got

Sharma.

confronted

This

with

his

statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

it was not so recorded by the police. PW1
has made substantial improvements in his
statement made before the court and there
are

very

serious

contradictions
before

the

in

his

court.

omissions

and

statement

made

Statement

of

this

witness may be rejected outright.

207.

Ld.

Counsel

for

further submitted that

Guard

Sharwan

Kumar

interested witness.

accused

has

PW30 Delhi Home

is

also

highly

His statement has to

be read with great caution. He has deposed

before

the

court

that

one

Sardar

was

driving Tata Sierra but he has not given

any

description

sardar.

or

features

of

that

There was no light inside the

car. It is only when there is light inside

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.104
to identify the driver of the car who was
sitting inside the car. So PW30 Delhi Home
Guard Sharwan

Kumar being an interested

witness has identified that Sikh Gentleman

Tony Gill at the instance of IO as there
was no occasion for him to see the driver
of the vehicle who was sitting inside the
car.

208.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

PW30

Delhi

Home

Guard

Sharwan Kumar has deposed before the court

that he had given the description of Vikas
Yadav

and

Amardeep

Singh

Gill

in

his

statement before the police. This portion

was got confronted with his statement u/s
161 Cr.PC wherein it was not so mentioned
there.
209.

Counsel

further

submitted

for

that

PW30

accused

has

Delhi

Home

Guard Sharwan Kumar has stated before the

court that he cannot tell the number of
other vehicles which were parked there. He
does not remember if he had told the IO
that 3-4 vehicle were standing on one side
and one Black Tata Safari was standing on
the

other

confronted

side,
with

this
his

portion

was

got

statement

u/s

161

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.105
Cr.PC

wherein

it

does

not

find

mention

there.
210.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

PW30

Delhi

Home

Guard

Sharwan Kumar has stated before the court

that there was light at the place where
vehicle was parked, this portion was got
confronted

with

Cr.PC wherein

his

statement

u/s

161

it was not so mentioned

there.
211.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that

no light or light pole has

been shown in the site plan Ex.PW21/A or

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

in

his statement.
212.
submitted

Counsel for accused has further

that

PW30

Delhi

Home

Guard

Sharwan Kumar has stated before the court

that he was told by the SHO to remain at
the spot when the SHO left the spot, this
portion

was

got

confronted

with

statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

his

it was

not so mentioned there.

213.
submitted

Counsel for accused has further

that

PW30

Delhi

Home

Guard

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.106
Sharwan Kumar has further deposed before
the court that Tata Sierra took a U turn
and then came near him, this portion was
got confronted with his statement u/s 161
Cr.PC wherein

it was not so mentioned

there.
214.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

PW30

Delhi

Home

Guard

Sharwan Kumar has stated before the court

that Black Tata Safari was attempted to be
opened

with

confronted
Cr.PC

key,

with

where

his

the

this

portion

statement
word

key

u/s
was

was
161
not

mentioned there.

215.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

PW30

Delhi

Home

Guard

Sharwan Kumar has stated before the court

that he has started his duty on the side
of Black Tata Safari, this portion was got
confronted
Cr.PC

with

wherein

his

it

was

statement
not

so

u/s

161

mentioned

there.
216.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

PW30

Delhi

Home

Guard

Sharwan Kumar has stated before the court

that

he had checked all the cars which

were parked there and all the cars were

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.107
locked,

this portion was confronted with

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

not so mentioned there.

217.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that it shows that PW30 Delhi

Home

Guard

Sharwan

Kumar

has

made

substantial improvements in his statement

when he deposed before the court and all
these improvements were not mentioned in
his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC which shows
that he is totally a false witness and he
has made

statement in the court at the

instance

of

IO

in

order

to

falsely

implicate the accused persons.

218.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that Smt. Beena Ramani PW20 and

PW24

George

Mailhot

were

booked

by

the

police in the Excise Act. An application

was moved by

two accused persons in the

court

seeking

of

MM

permission

to

go

abroad. In reply to the application filed

by

the

prosecution

on

16/8/99

the

prosecution alleged that additional charge

sheet

has

to

be

filed

against

these

accused persons as they are also guilty of

the offences of destroying the evidence of

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.108
this case and they should not be allowed
to go abroad. It was further alleged that
they

have

removed

the

blood

of

the

deceased from the spot which amounts to

destruction of evidence. Ld. MM passed the
order

dated

29/10/99

dismissing

the

application of these two accused persons

Beena Ramani and George Mailhot for going
abroad.
order

The ld. MM also observed in the

that

required

the
for

accused

persons

filing

an

chargesheet against

may

be

additional

them in the present

murder case.
219.

Counsel for accused has further

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.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.109
220.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

deal

was

also

struck

between the prosecution and the police on

one side and PW30 Delhi home guard Sharwan
Kumar on the other side and he was asked
to make a false statement in the court and
in response to the same he was rewarded by
the police. He got
as

he

was

a very handsome reward

promoted

to

the

post

of

Constable although he was neither eligible

nor competent to become a constable. He
was under matric and overage still he was
made constable out of turn

as a reward

for giving false evidence against accused

persons in this case.
221.

Counsel

submitted

that

examined
accused

for

accused

R.K.Khanna,
Alok

accused

Khanna

has

Alok

who
as

further

Khanna

is

father

DW1,

who

has
of
has

deposed before the court that on 4/5/99 at

about 7.30pm the police had come to his
house

and

inquired

about

his

son

Alok

Khanna.

He told the police that he had

gone

office.

to

The

police

photographs of Alok Khanna and

from

their

album.

After

took

away

Tony Gill

sometime

Alok

Khanna came, he was also taken away by the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.110
police with them with the assurance that
they will make some inquiries and then he
will

be

witness

let

off.

finds

evidence of

The

evidence

corroboration

of

this

from

the

witness PW6 Malini Ramani

who has stated that during the first five

days of the investigation photographs of
the

culprits

were

shown

to

her

by

the

police at the police station.

222.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that accused Tony Gill and Alok

Khanna have rightly refused to participate
in the TIP as they were shown to the PWs
and their photographs were also shown to
the

witnesses

in

the

police

station.

PW30 Delhi Home guard Sharwan Kumar has

admitted

before

the

court

that

after

arrest of the accused persons they were

detained

in

the

lockup

The other witnesses have

of

PS

Mehrauli.

also supported

this version of PW30. In the lockup they

were shown to all the witnesses.

223.

Counsel for accused has further

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.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.111
Accused are remanded to
JC in view of the TIP
to be conducted against
them.''
This order does not reflect
that

accused

faces.

were

produced

in

muffled

There is no mention of the same in

the remand order dated 5/5/99.

224.

PW 79 Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

MM has deposed before the court that as

per the endorsement Ex.PW79/A it is not
reflected in the order that accused Alok
Khanna

and

Amardeep

Singh

Gill

are

produced in muffled face or not.

225.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar

Sharma has deposed before the court that
he had not recorded in the arrest memo and
Jamatalashi memo

of accused Alok Khanna

and Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill that

they should keep their faces muffled

vide

arrest

memo

memo

and

Jamatalashi

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

Ex.PW 100/5 and 100/26 of Amardeep Singh
Gill respectively.
226.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that an application was moved by

the

counsel

Ex.PW101/X

for

accused

stating

on

6/5/99

therein

that

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.112
photographs of

the accused persons have

been taken away by the police from their

house on 5/5/99.
also

admitted

accused

PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has

that

persons

photographs

involved

in

of

the

this

case

appeared in the newspaper within 1 week of

the incident. PW6 Malini Ramani has also
admitted that during the first 5 days of
her

interrogation

photographs

of

the

she

was

culprits.

shown
PW30

has

admitted in the cross examination that the

photograph of all the accused persons have
appeared

in

print

media

as

well

as

in

visual media.

227.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted that the police has filed record

of the mobile phones of accused Amardip
Singh Gill and Alok Khanna. Although these
mobile phones belong to accused Amardeep
Singh Gill and Alok Khanna but it does not
mean that these mobile phones cannot be
used by other persons nor does it prove
that these mobile phones were only used by
these

accused

transpired

on

conversation

persons.
mobile
took

What

phones

place

actually
and

what

between

the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.113
accused persons has not been filed by the
police on record.

228.

Ld.

Sunder

Sharma

prosecution

Counsel

for

has

has

accused

Shyam

submitted

examined

five

that

witnesses

namely PW56 Chetan Nanda, PW57 Ashok Dutt,

PW60 Baldev Singh, PW61 Ishdeep and PW68
Mangal

Singh

regard

to

who

were

involvement

witnesses

of

with

accused

Sunder Sharma in this case.

Shyam

All these

witnesses have turned hostile and have not

uttered a single word against Shyam Sunder
Sharma
of

implicating him

crime.

Therefore,

in the commission
case

against

the

accused Shyam Sunder Sharma for destroying

the

evidence

accused

does

and
not

for
stand

harbouring
proved.

the

He

is

therefore, liable to be acquitted.

Counsel for accused has further
submitted that all the witnesses who have
been produced by the prosecution against
accused
Harwinder

Yograj

Singh,

Chopra

turned hostile.

and

Raja

Vikas
Chopra

Gill,
have

Witnesses PW52 Chander

Prakash Chabra, PW 64 Ravinder Singh Gill,

PW65 Kulwinder

Singh, PW69 Rakesh Kumar

Atri and PW71 Harminder Singh have turned

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.114
hostile and have not uttered even a single
word against the accused implicating them
in

the

commission

of

crime.

All

the

remaining witnesses also examined on the

point of harbouring of accused Sidhartha
Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
hostile.

have also turned

There is not even an iota of

evidence to implicate these accused with

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.''

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.115

(ii)
II (1997) CCR 191 Bombay High Court in
Re State of Maharashtra Vs. Harishchandra
Tukaram Awatade wherein it has been held as
under :''(v)Evidence Act, 1872 Section 3-Hostile witnessLaw-Testimony of hostile
witness - Not to be rejected
altogether - Extent to
which
corroborated
by
reliable
witness
Acceptable.''
(iii) 2001 Crl.LJ 487, SC in Re Gura Singh Vs.
State of Rajasthan wherein it has been held as
under :(A) Evidence Act (1 of
1872) S.154 - Hostile
witness - Testimony ofNot
to
be
excluded
entirely
or
rendered
unworthy
of
consideration.''
(iv) AIR 2005 SC 2804 In Re Mukhtiar Ahmed
Ansari Vs. State of Delhi, wherein it has been
held as under:'' (D) Evidence Act (1 of
1872),
S.154-Hostile
witness
Prosecution
witness
not
supporting
genesis
of
prosecutionAccused can rely on his
evidence''.
(V) AIR 1933 Patna 496 in Re Emperor Vs.
Ardali Mian and others wherein it has been held
as under:(a)
Criminal
TrialIdentification of accused
should
be
beyond
reasonable
doubtThe

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.116
evidence as to identification
of
accused
must
be
sufficient to exclude with
reasonable certainty the
possibility of mistake.''
(vi)

AIR 1995 SC 2128, Andhra Pradesh

in Re A. Jayaram and Another Vs. State of

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.118
evidence - All these factors effect
credibility of prosecution case Acquittal, proper.
(xi)

AIR

1979

Maharashtra

Vs.

SC

1410

Annappa

in

Re

Bandu

State

of

Kavatage

wherein it has been held as under:''Before a court can act on

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.120

4. On the availability of two

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

(xiv) AIR 1991 SC 1468 in Re Bollavaram Pedda

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

(xvii)

AIR 1996 SC 607 in Re Balwinder Singh

Vs. State of Punjab wherein it has been held as

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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:-

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.124

'' (a) Evidence Act (1872), S.154...

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

in Re

Saraswathamma and another Vs. Bhadramma

and another wherein it has been held as under:-

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

or

any

murder

other
of

accused

Jessica

witnesses

have

that accused

having

Lal.

stated

None
before

committed
of

these

the

court

Sidhartha Vashisht fired a

shot from his pistol at Jessica Lal.

three of

All

them have categorically stated

that they did not see accused Sidhartha

Vashisht

firing

deceased.

All

declared
Prosecutor.
stated

the

the

shot
three

hostile

by

at

Jessica

witnesses
ld.

Lal
were

Special

However, PW2 Shyan Munshi has

story

of

the

prosecution

in

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.128
detail. He has stated that two shots were
fired by two persons from two pistols. One
shot was fired by one person on the roof
of the restaurant while the other shot was
fired by another person at Jessica Lal as
a result of which she received injuries
which resulted into her death. Ld. Special
PP has categorically admitted that all the
three eye witnesses

of the prosecution

are hostile and they have not supported

the

case

of

the

prosecution

at

all.

However I agree with the contention of ld.

Special PP that accused Sidhartha Vashisht
was holder of licence of pistol of .22
bore

and

the

licence

of

the

pistol

is

Ex.PW7/B. It is also proved on record by

the prosecution that Haryana Gun House had
sold 25 rounds of

cartridges to accused

Sidhartha Vashisht on 4/2/99 by PW7 Naveen

Chopra.

The

categorically

ld.

Special

admitted

that

PP
the

has
pistol

used in the commission of crime has not

been

recovered

from

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht or from any other accused person

in this case.
230.

contention
vehicle

of

Tata

also
ld.

agree

Safari

Special

with
PP

the

that

the

no.CH-01-W-6535

was

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.129
registered in the name of M/s Picaddily
Agro Industries Private Limited Sector 34
Chandigarh, It is also proved on record
that accused Sidhartha Vashisht was one of
the director

in Picadilly Agro Industry

Limited in the year 1999 but it has not

been proved on record by any witness that
the accused

Sidhartha Vashisht had been

using this vehicle in the year 1999 nor it

has been proved on record by any cogent
evidence that accused Sidhartha Vashisht
had

used

this

vehicle

on

the

day

of

occurrence and had taken this vehicle to

Qutub Colonnade on the date of occurrence.
231.

I also agree with the contention

of ld. Special PP that accused Amardeep

Singh Gill and Alok Khanna were working in
Hindustan Cocacola Company at the relevant
time and they were alloted Tata Siera car
each by the company for use.

It has also

been

Tata

proved

on

record

that

Siera

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

Amardeep

Singh

Gill

by

the

Cocacola

Company at the relevant time.

232.

I also agree with the contention

of ld. Special PP that accused Amardeep

Singh

Gill

was

having

mobile

phone

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.130
no.9811100237
was

having

These

while

accused

mobile

mobile

phone

phones

Alok

Khanna

no.9811068169.

were

given

by

Hindustan Cocacola company to them at the

relevant time.
233.

also

agree

with

the

submissions made by ld. Special PP that

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

also

agree

with

the

submissions made by ld. Special PP that

telephone no.4765152-53 installed at Sugar
mill

owned

by

M/s

Picadilly

Agro

Industries Limited and Sidhartha Vashisht

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

I also agree with the submissions

by

ld.

Special

PP

that

Ms.

Beena

Ramani was the owner of restaurant ''Once

upon a time'' and she was running a cafe
named

Tamarind

Court

Cafe

at

Qutub

Colonnade at the relevant time in the year

1999.
236.

also

agree

with

the

submissions made by ld. Special PP that on

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.131
private party was going on at the said
restaurant

Tamarind

Cafe,

this

was

Thursday party and this party used to be

held on every Thursday of the week and
liquor

was

being

served

at

the

said

restaurant in that party. It had also come

in the evidence of PW29 Shahana

Mukherjee

that on the date of occurrence Jessica Lal

was

wearing

blue

denim

short

and

half

with

the

sleeve white shirt.

237.

also

agree

submissions made by ld. Special PP that

accused Sidhartha Vashisht alongwith coaccused
Gill,

persons

Alok

namely

Khanna

and

Amardeep
Vikas

Singh

Yadav

were

also present in the said party at Tamarind

cafe on the night of occurrence.

It has

also been pointed out that someone fired a

shot at Jessica Lal as a result of which
she received injury on her head.

She was

removed to the Ashlok hospital and from

there she was removed to Apollo hospital
where she was declared brought dead by the
Doctor at 4.37am as per the statement of
PW99 Deepak Vats.
238.

It

has

also

been

proved

on

record that

Jessica Lal was transferred

from

hospital

Apollo

to

AIIMS

hospital

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.132
where

post mortem was conducted on her

body by PW9 Dr. R.K.Sharma who has given

cause of death as head injury caused by
fire arm.
239.

It

has

also

been

proved

on

record that injury no.3 was sufficient to

cause

death

in

the

ordinary

also

agree

course

of

nature.
240.

with

the

submissions made by ld. Special PP that

PW20 Beena Ramani has deposed before the
court that PW2 Shyan Munshi came running
to her and told her that someone had fired
a shot at Jessica Lal and Jessica Lal had
received injuries in that firing.

241.

I also agree with the submissions

made by ld. Special PP that PW20 Beena

Ramani

has

stated

that

she

stopped

one

person namely Sidhartha Vashisht who was

coming along with Shyan Munshi.
him to give her the gun.
deposed

that

she

thought

She told

She has further

that

the

said

person was carrying a gun with him and she

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.133
Ramani and she felt that accused Sidhartha
Vashisht must have fired a shot at Jessica
Lal

but

it

has

been

admitted

by

this

witness PW20 that she had not seen accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

firing

shot

at

Jessica Lal but it was only her feelings

or that she thought that the accused might
have fired a shot at Jessica Lal on the
day

of

occurrence.

Simply

because

PW20

Beena Ramani had a feeling about accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma that he
might have fired a shot at Jessica Lal
does

not

Vashisht

mean
had

that

accused

actually

fired

Sidhartha
a

shot

at

Jessica Lal. LD. Special PP has submitted

that court should appreciate the feelings
of Smt. Beena Ramani PW20 because she had
thought immediately after the occurrence
that accused
Sharma

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

had fired a shot at Jessica Lal.

At the same time she has stated that she

is

neither

an

eye

witness

nor

she

was

present at the spot when the incident took

place

nor

she

saw

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma firing a shot at

Jessica Lal.
of

evidence

So this is
that

she

a very weak type

felt

that

accused

might have fired a shot at Jessica Lal. I

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.134
donot

agree

with

the

contention

of

ld.

Special PP that I should hold that accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

had

fired

shot

at

Jessica Lal simply because PW Beena Ramani

had a feeling that he might have fired a
shot at her.

242.

Ld.

Special

submitted that

PP

has

further

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

Bhojwani

the
it

evidence
only

of

stands

PW1

Deepak

proved

that

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Alok Khanna and Amardeep Singh Gill and
Vikas Yadav were seen in the said party at
Tamarind

Cafe

where

this

incident

took

place. This evidence and the evidence of

other witnesses only show their presence
at the spot.
evidence

of

It has also come in the

PW1

Deepak

Bhojwani,

PW24

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.135
George Mailhot, PW20 Beena Ramani and PW6
Malini

Ramani

that

there

were

several

persons present in the party it may be

more than 100 persons. PW24 has also given
the list of persons present at the party
which is Ex.PW24/A, so from the evidence
of

this

witness

record

that

present

in

intervening

it

four

has

been

accused

the

party

29/4/99

and

proved

persons
on

the

30/4/99.

on

were
night
So,

agree with the submissions of ld. Spl PP

that these four persons were seen at the
spot of occurrence on the night of 2930/4/99.

243.

Ld.

submitted

Special

that

all

the

PP

has

further

accused

persons

namely Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Amardeep Singh @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna
and Vikas Yadav had come to Tamarind Cafe
in

black

Tata

Safari

registration no.CH-01-W-6535.

bearing
I do not

agree with the contention of ld.Special PP

on this point because no witness has been
produced

in

this

regard

that

accused

persons had come in a Black Tata Safari a t

the spot.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.136
244.

Ld.

submitted
were

in

Special

that

all

touch

PP

the

with

has

accused

each

also
persons

other

on

the

mobile phones or on the landline phones

after the occurrence.
the

statement

of

I have gone through

PW16

Raj

Narain

that

several STD calls were made from telephone

no.3782072 to Chandigarh at the telephone
number
of

which was installed at the house

accused

Sharma.

Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu

This contention of ld. Special PP

does not carry much force because he has

not

placed

on

record

the

conversation

which took place between all these accused

persons about the commission of crime and
it

has

landline

not

been

phone

proved

and

on

that

phones

from

Mobile

record

where these calls were made were actually

made by
In

the

the accused persons themselves.

absence

of

the

accused

persons,

other persons might have used the mobile

phone or landline phones. Even

otherwise

the calls made from one phone to the other

mobile

phone

involvement

of

does
the

not

prove

accused

in

the
the

commission of crime. Moreover, telephone

number

was installed at the residence of

Sh. D.P. Yadav

and it could not be said

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.137
that accused Vikas Yadav had made these
calls to Chandigarh to accused Sidhartha
Vashisht.
accused

Nor does it prove that both

persons

were

involved

in

the

PP

further

commission of crime.
245.

Ld.

Special

has

submitted that PW94 SI Bijender Singh

has

recorded conversation between Ashok Dutt

and Ravinder Sudan who had left for USA.
246.

have

conversation
persons

but

gone

through

the

recorded

between

these

two

PW57

Ashok

Dutt

had

categorically stated that no conversation

had

taken

place

between

Ashok

Dutt

and

Ravinder Sudan nor sample of the voice of

Ravinder Sudan and Ashok Dutt were sent
for analysis to CFSL to prove that these
two persons were in conversation with each
other.

Moreover CW1 Dr. Rawel Singh had

also examined the audio cassette and he

opined that
''Shyamjee''

accused had not used the word

but

he

had

used

the

word

''Sangli'' as alleged by the prosecution.

So, the alleged conversation between

PW57

Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Sudan is of no

help to the prosecution.

247.

It is further submitted by ld.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.138
Special

PP

that

Black

Tata

Safari

was being used by Harvinder Chopra as he

was working as Executive Director in M/s
Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd.
prosecution has
evidence

to

But the

not produced any cogent

prove

Safari was being

that

this

Black

Tata

used by accused persons

at the relevant time.

248.

Ld.

that

accused

Singh,

PP

Harvinder

Shyam

harboured
Mannu

Special

Sunder

accused

Sharma

for

has

submitted

Chopra,

Sharma

Sidhartha
giving

Yograj

had

also

Vashisht

him

the

food,

shelter and conveyance etc. I have gone

through the record but it has not been
proved

that

these

accused

persons

have

given Shelter, conveyance and food etc to

accused Shidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
and

they

had

harboured

him

after

the

commission of crime.
249.

Ld.

Special

PP

has

further

submitted that accused Sidhartha Vashisht

had

absconded

police
crime

from

immediately
and

he

the

jurisdiction

of

commission

of

after

could

not

be

arrested

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

police at all the available addresses of

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.139
the said accused. I have gone through the
statement of PW87 Inspector
who has deposed

Raman Lamba

that accused Sidhartha

Vashisht could not be arrested on 3/4-599. However he has admitted that on 5/5/99
he

was

informed

by

the

senior

police

officers that accused Amardeep Singh Gill

and Alok Khanna had been arrested by the
police in Delhi and they had disclosed the
involvement of accused Sidhartha Vashisht
@

Mannu

Sharma

in

this

case.

thereafter gave a notice to the

accused

Mannu

Sharma

to

He

father of

produce

him

before the police. He has also admitted

that on 6/5/99 accused Sidhartha Vashisht
surrendered
Chandigarh

before
and

he

the
was

police

produced

by

at
his

counsel Harish Ghai. From the evidence of

this witness it has become clear that on
5/5/99 the Delhi police came to know about
the

involvement

Vashisht

after

of
the

accused
arrest

Sidhartha
of

accused

Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khanna who

had made disclosure statements before the
police

regarding

involvement

of

accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma in this

case. It has also come in the evidence of
PW87 that he had served notice on 5/5/99

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.140
to

the

father

Vashisht

of

Mannu

accused

Sharma

to

Sidhartha

produce

him

before the police and on 6/5/99 accused

Mannu Sharma surrendered before the Delhi
police at Chandigarh. So this argument of
the

ld.

Special

absconded after

PP

that

accused

had

the commission of crime

does not stand proved. Rather it has been

proved on record that on 5/5/99 a notice
was served on the father of accused and on
6/5/99 he was produced before the police
by his advocate. So I do not agree with
the contention of special PP that accused
Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu

Sharma

had

absconded after the commission of crime.

250.
of

I have also heard the arguments

ld. Counsel for

agree

with

persons
three

the

that
eye

murder

the accused

counsel

prosecution

witnesses

with

for

their

who

own

the
had

had

eyes

and I
accused
examined

seen

the

namely

PW2

Shyan Munshi, PW3 Shiv Dass and PW4 Karan

Rajput.

All these three witnesses have

categorically stated
seen

the

accused

that they have not

Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu Sharma firing a shot from his pistol

at Jessica Lal.

All the three witnesses

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.141
have been declared hostile by special PP
and

in

their

Special

PP

cross

they

examination

by

the

not

support

the

gone

through

the

did

version of prosecution.
251.

statement
given
of

have
of

also

PW2

Shyan

before the court

the

Munshi

the entire

prosecution

examination-in-chief
identified

in
but

accused

who

Mannu

story

detail
he

in

has

Sharma

has

not

having

fired a shot at Jessica Lal. PW2 Shyan

Munshi

has

presence

further

two

deposed

shots

different persons.

were

that
fired

in

his

by

two

One shot was fired at

the roof of the restaurant from one pistol

by

one person

fired

at

and the

Jessica

Lal

other shot was

from

pistol by another person which

the

other

struck on

the head of Jessica Lal as a result of

which she received injuries which resulted
into her death.

So PW2 Shyan Munshi has

given a story that two persons had fired

two

shots

from

two

different

pistols.

While the prosecution story is that only

one person had fired two shots from one
pistol. The story put forward by PW2 Shyan
Munshi has been corroborated by the CFSL

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.142
report.

Two

fired

recovered

from

bullets were
New Delhi.

the

bullets

spot

and

both

were
these

sent for analysis to CFSL

The CFSL New Delhi opined that

both these fired cartridge were different

in size having different characteristics
and they further

opined that because of

their characteristics they were fired from

two different weapons.
sent

these

two

Prosecution again

fired

cartridges

FSL Jaipur for analysis.

to

The Ballistic

experts at FSL Jaipur also submitted the

report

and

also

cartridges

opined

that

these

two

were of different size and

characteristics

and

these

fired

cartridges were fired from two different

weapons. So both the FSL reports one from
CFSL

New

Jaipur

Delhi

have

and

given

the
a

other

report

from

that

FSL

these

two fired cartridges were fired from two

different pistols. Not only this they have
also

opined

cartridges

that

were

these

different

characteristics and they

two
in

size

fired
and

were fired from

two different weapons. So, the prosecution

story that one person had fired two

shots

from one pistol stands contradicted by the

CFSL

report

and

the

medical

evidence.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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
story of the prosecution that one person
fired two shots from the same pistol has
not

been

proved

on

prosecution. Rather

record

by

the

this story has been

contradicted by CFSL experts.

252.

The

weapon

of

offence

i.e.

Pistol used in the commission of crime has

not been recovered from accused Sidhartha
Vashisht. I have gone through
which reveals
Mannu

the record

that Sidhartha Vashisht @

Sharma was arrested on 6/5/99 and

the police obtained his police remand from

6/5/99
17/5/99

to

12/5/99

but

the

and

from

police

12/5/99

to

failed

to

has

recover the pistol used in the commission

of

crime

from

the

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht. Rather the police had to prepone

the

police

remand

of

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht from 17/5/99 to 15/5/99 as they

failed to get any arm recovered from him.
In my opinion a very important link in the
story of prosecution is missing.

Had the

pistol

accused

been

recovered

Sidhartha Vashisht

from

it could have linked

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.144
him with the commission of crime but on
account

of

non

recovery

of

pistol

this

vital link in the chain is missing.

253.

Counsel for accused has further

submitted

that

police

had

shown

15

photographs to P.W.2 Shyan Munshi but he

did not identify photographs of any of the
accused

persons.

agree

with

the

contention of ld. Counsel on this point as

I have gone through the statement of PW2
Shyan Munshi who has deposed before the
court that SI Sharad Kumar has shown him
15 photographs including the photograph of
accused

persons

but

he

told

the

police

that none of the accused persons was that

of the accused persons

who was involved

in the commission of crime.

254.

PW2

Shyan

Munshi

has

stated

that he can neither speak Hindi nor he can

write in Hindi. He had made a statement to
the police in English but the police asked
him to sign his statement which was in
Hindi and he had signed that statement in
good faith.

He does not know what was

recorded by the police in that statement.

PW 23 Rouble Dunglay has stated before the
court that PW2 Shyan Munshi always talked
to

him

in

English

as

he

did

not

know

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.145
Hindi.

255.
of

I also agree with the contention

ld.

Counsel

Sidhartha

for

Vashisht

the

accused

Mannu

that

Sharma

had

purchased 25 rounds of .22 bore against

his licence from PW7 Naveen Chopra and PW7
has

deposed

that

all

these

rounds

were

bearing mark KF on the head of the round.

He has further deposed
that

KF

stands

for

before the court

Kirki

Factory

and

these 25 cartridges sold to him were made

in

India

Ballistic

at

Kirki

expert

cartridge which

Factory

have

opined

while

the

that

two

were recovered from the

spot were bearing mark 'C' on their head

and this mark C stands for manufacturing
company CCI from USA which proves that the
fired bullets

which were recovered from

the spot were manufactured by CCI company

of USA whereas the 25 rounds which were
purchased by accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma were made in Kirki factory
in

India.

So

even

the

two

spent

cartridges recovered from the spot which

were used in the commission of crime have
not matched with the 25 cartridges which
were

purchased

by

accused

immediately

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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.

also

agree

with

the

counsel

for accused that on 30/4/99 the police had

decided

to

frame

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

@ Mannu Sharma in this case.

have gone through the statement of PW101

Insp.

Surender

Kumar

Sharma

who

has

deposed before the court that on 30/4/99

in the morning he had received information
from his senior police officers about the
involvement of accused Sidhartha Vashisht
@ Mannu Sharma in this case. He had also
come to know that Black Tata Safari found
in

Tamarind

Cafe

belonged

to

accused

Sidhartha Vashisht so he sent SI Pankaj

Malik

on

30/4/99

to

secure

Black

Tata

Safari and also to arrest accused Mannu

Sharma.

So

decided

that

it

appears

accused

that

Sidhartha

PW101

had

Vashisht

was involved in the commission of crime

and that Black Tata Safari was also used
by accused Sidhartha Vashisht while coming
to the spot. Although the police had not
collected any evidence to this effect nor

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.147
statement of any witness was recorded by
the police

regarding the involvement of

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

in

this

case.

Nor

any

evidence

was

collected by the police but still PW101

admits that

he had received information

from senior police officers that accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

commission

of

was

crime.

involved

agree

in

the

with

the

contention of ld. counsel for accused that

the police had decided to fix accused in
this case although there was no evidence
available with the police on record about
his involvement in this case.
257.

I also agree with the contention

of ld. counsel for the accused that PW30

Delhi

Home

present

Guard

at

Sharwan

the

spot

on

Kumar
the

was
night

not
of

occurrence i.e. on the night of 29-30-499,

As

per

DD

mentioned that

no.40A

it

is

clearly

Delhi Home Guard Sharwan

Kumar PW30 had left the police station at

about 2.20 a.m

along with DD no.40A to

give the copy of the DD to SI Rishi Pal

who was present at village Dera.
PW101 Insp.

Whereas

Surender Sharma has deposed

that he had taken Delhi Home Guard Sharwan

Kumar

along

with

him

to

the

spot

at

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.148
2.25am.
is

The presence of PW30 at the spot

contrary to the record maintained at

the police station.

258.

PW101 Insp. Surender Sharma has

admitted in the cross examination that he

left

the

police

station

alongwith

ASI

Kailash, Ct. Ram Niwas, Ct. Ramphal and

Ct. Yatender Singh. He has also admitted
that the names of these four persons have
been

mentioned

in

the

DD

No.43A

having

left the police station along with him.

DD no.43A is an entry in which he has made
departure entry of himself along with four
police officials but there is no mention
of name of Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar
having

left

with

him

in

this

DD

entry

no.43A Ex.PW13/D1 which further shows that

as per DD no.43A Delhi Home Guard Sharwan
Kumar PW30 had not left the police station
for

the

spot

along

with

PW101

Insp.

Surender Sharma and he has been introduced

as a witness by PW101 in order to create a
false
persons.

evidence
Once

against
PW30

Delhi

the

accused

Home

Guard

Sharwan Kumar has left the police station

at about 2.20am for Dera village as per
the

DD

question

no.40A
of

Ex.PW13/D1,
PW30

Sharwan

there
Kumar

is

no

again

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.149
going

along

with

PW101

Insp.

Surender

Sharma at 2.25am from the PS to

the spot

because both these things are contrary to

each other.

Either PW 30 Delhi Home Guard

Sharwan Kumar can be at Dera village or he

can be at the spot. He cannot be present
at both the places as per the record of
the police station itself.
259.

I have also gone through the DD

no.44 wherein it has been mentioned that

at about 3.05am a rukka has been sent by
SI Rishi Pal to Duty officer
for

registration

of

case

PS Mehrauli
against

the

accused at PS Dera bearing FIR no.286/99

u/s 308 IPC which further proves that SI
Rishi Pal has gone to Dera village from
where he had sent a rukka for registration
of

the

case

at

police

station.

Once

Sharwan Kumar has gone to Dera village his

presence at the gate of police station is
out

of

question

and

further

that

he

accompanied Surender Kumar Sharma for the

spot is also out of question. PW30 Sharwan
Kumar

has

admitted

examination

that

in

the

there

cross

was

no

advertisement made by the police party for

recruitment

of

the

constables

in

the

newspaper nor he had applied against any

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.150
such advertisement.

He has also admitted

that for recruitment of the constables the

minimum qualification is Matriculation and
there is also age bar for the recruitment
to the post of constable and the person
who is between age of 18 to 21 can only be
recruited as constable in the police.

He

also admitted that he is under matric and

he is overage as his age is 27 years and
he is not eligible to become a constable.
He

has

also

recommendation

admitted
of

that

PW101

on

Insp.

the

Surender

Kumar Sharma and the other senior officers

he was appointed as constable out of turn
and

as

special

case

in

Delhi

Police

which further shows that PW30 who was not

present

at

the

spot

and

he

has

been

rewarded by the Delhi police for giving

false evidence in this case against the
accused persons. He has been promoted out
of turn and as a special case although he
is not eligible to become a constable in
Delhi

police

due

to

his

under

qualification and his being overage. Still

he has been given this temptation so that
he may give false evidence in this case.
260.

I also agree with the contention

of ld. Counsel for accused persons

that

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.151
PW30 Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar has
also made substantial

improvements in his

statement made before the court.

In the

cross examination he has stated that 3-4

vehicles were standing on one side and one
Tata Safari was standing separately. This
portion

was

got

confronted

with

his

statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein

it is not so recorded.
261.

He

has

further

deposed

before

the court that he had checked up all the

vehicles
portion

which
was

were

got

found

locked.

confronted

with

This
his

statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC wherein it

is not so recorded.
262.

He

has

further

deposed

before

the court that he had started his duty

the

place

where

parked. This

Black

Tata

Safari

at
was

portion was got confronted

with his statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC

wherein it is not so recorded.
263.

He

has

further

deposed

before

the court that he had joined SHO at the

gate of police station for going to the
spot.

This

portion

was

got

confronted

with his statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC

wherein it is not so recorded.
264.

He

has

further

deposed

before

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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
statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC wherein it
is not so recorded.
265.

He

has

further

deposed

before

the court that vehicle Tata Sierra came

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

was

got

confronted

with

his

statement recorded u/s161 Cr.PC wherein it

is not so recorded.
266.
the

He
court

has
that

further
Black

deposed

Tata

before

Safari

was

attempted to be opened with a key, this

portion

was

statement

got

confronted

recorded

u/s161

with

Cr.PC

his

wherein

the word 'key' is not mentioned.

267.

He

has

further

deposed

before

the court that he had asked the accused

not to open the Black Tata Safari but he
opened

it

and

entered

forcibly

in

the

Black Tata Safari, this portion was got

confronted
u/s161

with his statement recorded

Cr.PC

wherein

it

is

not

so

recorded.
268.

He

has

further

deposed

before

the court that he does not know how many

police officials were present inside the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.153
Qutub Colonnade at that time. He has told
the

fact

removed

of

Black

from

the

Tata

Safari

spot

to

being

one

Head

Constable but he does know his name nor he

knows from which police station that Head
constable had come, this portion was
confronted
u/s161

got

with his statement recorded

Cr.PC

wherein

it

is

not

so

recorded.
269.

He

has

further

deposed

before

the court that he does not know if the

window pane had broken or not. He has also
not handed over the danda to the police.
He has further deposed before the court
that he noted down the number of Black
Tata Safari on his palm, this fact was not
mentioned either in the statement u/s161
Cr.PC or in the case diary.
270.
of

I also agree with the contention

ld.

Insp.

counsel
Surender

introduced
glass
No

accused

Kumar

that

Sharma

PW101

has

also

the story of broken pieces of

recovered from Black Tata Safari.

such

broken

recovered
Safari

for

from

by

PW91

pieces

of

glass

were

inside

the

Black

Tata

SI

Dubey

BD

who

had

through

the

recovered the vehicle from Noida.

271.

have

also

gone

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.154
statement of PW91 SI BD Dubey
stated

that

on

information on

2/5/99

on

who has

receipt

of

telephone that a vehicle

involved in Jessica Lal murder case was

parked at NTPC township. He went to the
spot

and

bearing

seized

the

Black

no.CH-01-W-6535

conducted

thorough

Tata

and

search

of

Safari

he

also

the

said

vehicle vide memo Ex.PW74/A. From inside

the vehicle he recovered one .22 bore live
cartridge alongwith cassettes but he has
not mentioned about the recovery of any
broken pieces of glass in his memo at all.
Nor he has stated in his statement about
the recovery of glass in the Black Tata
Safari.

In the cross examination he has

admitted

that

no

pieces

of

glass

found inside the Black Tata Safari.

were
He

has also admitted in the cross examination

that when he reached PS Sector-34, Noida,
he found police of PS Mehrauli and also
found media persons present at the police
station on 2/5/99
he

he also admitted that

joined police of PS Mehrauli

investigation
itself.
Dubey

of

this

This version

case

on

in the
2/5/99

of PW91 SI BD

is also contrary to the statement

of PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar Sharma as he

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.155
has

deposed

before

the

court

that

on

2/5/99 he received information about the

seizure

of

Black

Tata

Safari

by

Noida

police. On 3/5/99 he moved an application

before the Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad
and in the said application he requested
the Magistrate to release the vehicle on
supardari.

The application of the IO is

Ex.PW101/1

and

the

order

of

the

ld.

Judicial Magistrate is Ex.PW101/2. In the

application Ex.PW101/1 it is only prayed
that Black Tata Safari may be released to
the

Delhi

police

and

in

the

order

Ex.PW101/2 it is mentioned that only Black

Tata

Safari

may

be

released

to

Delhi

police, There is no mention of release of

any

other

article

including

the

broken

pieces of glass.
272.

have

also

gone

through

statement of PW91 SI BD Dubey

deposed
joined

before
the

investigation
Insp.

Surender

the

court

Delhi
on

2/5/99

Kumar

who has

that

police

he
in

whereas

Sharma

the

has

has
the

PW101
stated

that he has seized the vehicle from Noida

police on 3/5/99. Pw101 has further stated
before the court that SI BD Dubey handed
over to him broken piece of glass seized

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.156
from the Black Tata Safari but there is no
mention

in

the

order

passed

by

the

Judicial Magistrate for release of broken

pieces

of

glass

nor

his

version

gets

corroboration from PW91 SI BD Dubey about

handing

over

of

broken

piece

of

glass.

After going through the statement of both

these witnesses I am of the opinion that
PW101 has introduced the story of broken
pieces of glass in his statement and there
is no mention of the same in the seizure
memo Ex.PW74/A nor it is mentioned in the
order of ld. Magistrate and I also hold
that broken pieces of glass were

never

seized from Black Tata Safari and this has

been
prove

introduced
the

by

PW101

prosecution

in

order

to

case

against

the

gone

through

the

accused persons.
273.

have

statement of
Sharma

who

also

PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar

has

further

cross examination that

is seizure memo

admitted

in

his

Ex.PW100/DB which

in respect of

all the

articles seized by him was written by SI

Vijay

Kumar and he has also admitted that

he had gone to Noida along with SI Vijay

Kumar on 3/5/99 but SI Vijay Kumar has
stated

that

he

has

joined

the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.157
investigation of this case for the first
time on 18/5/99 and never joined the same
on

3/5/99

which

further

falsifies

the

statement of PW101.
274.

have

also

gone

through

the

statement of PW100 who has deposed before

the court in his cross examination that on
30/4/99 at about 3.15pm SHO Insp. Surender
Kumar Sharma met him and informed him that
the

vehicle

Black

no.CH-01-W-6535
the

name

of

Tata

Safari

bearing

which is registered in
Picadilly

Agro

Industries

Limited has been found in Karnal by the

police. So the evidence of this witness
contradicts the stand of the police that
the said vehicle was recovered by police
of PS Sector 24 Noida whereas this vehicle
had already been recovered from Karnal as
per the statement of PW100 SI Sunil Kumar.
It further proves that Black Tata Safari
was not recovered in the jurisdiction of
PS Sector 24, Noida, but it had already
been recovered at

Karnal and police has

concocted a false story and falsely got

recovered
police

it

at

station

UP

at

while

Sector
this

24

vehicle

Noida
was

already in the custody of police as it was

recovered from Karnal on 30/4/99.

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.158
275.

I also agree with the contention

of ld. Counsel for the accused that there

is

no

evidence

on

record

to

show

that

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav and Alok
Khanna had come in a

Black Tata Safari to

Qutub

the

Colonnade

on

night

of

29-

30/4/99. PW101 Insp. Surender Kumar Sharma

has admitted in his cross examination that
he has not recorded the statement of any
witness to the effect that these accused
persons had come in Black Tata Safari on
the night of occurrence. It has also not
been proved on record by the prosecution
that accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

Sharma had been using Black Tata Safari

bearing
time.
this

no.CH-01-W-6535

at

the

relevant

No witness has been examined in

regard

to

prove

that

accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma had been

using

this

car

at

the

relevant

time.

However, PW48 has deposed before the court

that Black Tata Safari bearing no. CH-01W-6535

belongs

to

Industries

and

this

Harvinder

Chopra

Picadilly
car

who

was
was

Agro

alloted
working

to
as

Executive Director in the company. He has

nowhere

deposed

in

his

statement

that

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.159
accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma
was using the said Black Tata Safari at
the relevant time.
276.
of

I also agree with the contention

ld.

counsel

prosecution
mobile

has

phone

for

the

failed

accused

to

no.9811096893

connect
with

that
the

accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. PW101

has admitted
mobile

that neither the aforesaid

phone

nor

its

sim

card

were

recovered from accused Sidhartha Vashisht

@

Mannu

Sharma.

Prosecution

has

not

produced a single witness in the court to

prove that this mobile phone was owned by
him

and was being used by accused Mannu

Sharma. So in my opinion the prosecution

has failed to prove on record that accused
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma had been
using the aforesaid mobile phone at the
time of commission of crime or after the
date of occurrence.
277.

I also agree with the contention

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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
hospital

who

were

but

she

known
has

to

not

her

at

the

mentioned

the

name of Deepak Bhojwani in her statement

before the court.

It is admitted by the

IO PW101 that statement of Deepak Bhojwani

PW1 was recorded on 14/5/99 i.e. after 15
days of the occurrence.

This occurrence

took place on the night of 29-30/4/99 but

the
after

statement
15

days.

of

witness

No

was

explanation

recorded
has

been

given by the police as to why statement of

such

an

important

witness

has

been

recorded after 15 days of the occurrence.

This also casts a doubt on the presence of
Deepak Bhojwani PW1 at the spot and it

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.161
appears that he was introduced later on by
the police to depose against the accused
persons. Moreover Deepak Bhojwani PW1 is
an interested witness as he was known to
the deceased, her sister and her parents.
Deepak

Bhojwani

had

deposed

before

the

court that when injured Jessica Lal was

removed to Ashlok hospital he also went to
Ashlok hospital and he also found police
present

there.

PW1

Deepak

Bhojwani

has

further stated that from Ashlok hospital

he went to Apollo hospital and he met the
police at Apollo hospital and he gave the
police the description of the person who
was involved in the commission of crime.
He went to his house after Jessica Lal was
declared

dead

hospital.

by

This

the

fact

Doctor
does

at

not

the
find

corroboration from the statement of other

witnesses.

PW29

Sahana

Mukherjee

has

stated before the court that she did not

see the police at Apollo hospital although
she

had

met

police

at

Ashlok

hospital.

Similarly PW 73 Sabrina Lal has deposed

before

the

present at

court

that

police

was

not

Apollo Hospital although she

had met police at Ashlok Hospital. From

the statement of these two persons it has

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.162
been confirmed that police had not reached
the hospital when Jessica Lal was declared
dead. This fact is further confirmed by
PW100

SI

Sunil

Kumar

who

has

deposed

before the court that DD was recorded at

the

police

station

at

death of Jessica Lal.

Sharad

5.30am

regarding

Thereafter he, SI

Kumar and SI Rishi Pal went to

the hospital.

These police officials must

have reached the hospital at 7am and SI

Sharad Kumar

has nowhere deposed before

the court that he met PW1 Deepak Bhojwani

at Apollo hospital nor he stated before
the court that Deepak Bhojwani told him
anything

about

accused

involved

the

description

in

the

of

commission

the
of

crime nor this witness told him about the

description of Mannu Sharma having met him
and having asked for the drinks at Qutub
Colonnade Tamarind Cafe restaurant. PW90
Durga

Prasad

has

deposed

that

name

of

Deepak Bhojwani does not find mention in

the list Ex.PW24/A given by PW24 George
Mailhot. PW1 Deepak Bhojwani has deposed
before

the

court

that

he

met

accused

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma at 1am

at Tamarind cafe and within 15 minutes he
heard about firing of shot whereas this

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.163
incident had taken place after 2am. This
further falsifies the claim of PW1 Deepak
Bhojwani that he was present at the spot
at the relevant time.

PW1 has also made

improvements in the statement made before

the

court

and

his

statement

is

neither

reliable nor trustworthy as he has been

introduced

as

false

witness

by

the

police. I hold that this witness has been

introduced

by

the

police

in

order

to

falsely implicate the accused persons in

this case.
278.
Ramani

The
is

evidence

also

prosecution. PW6

of

no

of

PW6

help

Malini
to

the

has deposed before the

court that one person had asked her for

drinks and also from Jessica Lal. Accused
Sidhartha
looks

Vashisht

like

that

Mannu

person.

In

Sharma
the

just
cross

examination she has admitted that accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu

Sharma

was

shown to her at the police station by the

police. She also says that the photograph
of the culprits were shown to her between
1/5/99 to 5/5/99.

She has also stated

that on 7/5/99 she along with her parents

had reached police station where accused
Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu

Sharma

was

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.164
shown to her and also her parents at the
interrogation centre. She is not sure if
Mannu Sharma is the same person who had
asked for drink from Jessica Lal. She has
only stated that Mannu Sharma looks like
that person. So this identification is no
identification in the eyes of law. In my
opinion the evidence of this witness is
also of no help to the prosecution.
279.

I also agree with the contention

of ld. Counsel for accused that evidence

of PW20 Beena Ramani is also of no help to
the prosecution.
deposed

before

PW20 Beena Ramani has

the

court

that

she

was

present at Tamarind Court Cafe in Qutub

Colonnade when she heard one shot and a
moment later she heard another shot being
fired by someone in the restaurant.

PW2

Shyan Munshi came to her along with one

more

person

when

Jessica

Lal

had

been

shot. She stopped the companion of Shyan

Munshi.

She

has

pointed

out

towards

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

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

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.165
met

alongwith PW2 Shyan Munshi. So from

the evidence of this witness it has become

clear

that

even

she

herself

is

not

satisfied that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu

Sharma is the same person whom she had
confronted
Shyan
that

at

the

Munshi.
she

restaurant

She

thinks

has

that

alongwith

further
accused

deposed
Amardeep

Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav

were also with him. She was not sure even
about the presence of Amardeep Singh Gill,
Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav at the spot.
280.

also

agree

with

the

contention of ld. Counsel for accused that

PW24 George Mailhot was not present at the
Tamarind court cafe at the time of the
incident.

have

gone

through

the

statement of PW86 Jagan Nath Jha who has

deposed

before

the

court

that

George

Mailhot had gone out of Qutub Colonnade at

12.30 midnight on the day of occurrence
and he came back to the Qutub Colonnade
after Jessica Lal had been removed to the
hospital.

PW46

Madan

Kumar

has

deposed

before the court that he was working as a

waiter in the restaurant. He has further
deposed that on the night of 29-30/4/99
PW24

George

Mailhot

had

left

the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.166
restaurant at 12.30 midnight and he did
not see George Mailhot thereafter at the
restaurant

nor

he

saw

George

Mailhot

present at the place of incident. So it

has

been

these

proved

two

from

the

witnesses

that

statements
PW24

of

George

Mailhot had gone out of the restaurant at

the

time

of

introduced

incident

as

and

false

he

witness

has

been

in

this

case.
281.

I also agree with the contention

of ld. Counsel for accused that police has

failed to prove the conversation between
PW 57 Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Sudan @ Titu
at

USA.

PW94

SI

Brijender

Singh

has

deposed that he had taken Ashok Dutt to

the telephone booth and Ashok Dutt had a
detailed conversation with Ravinder Sudan
who is at USA with regard to the pistol
which
Sharma

was

handed

and

commission

over

which
of

by

was

crime.

accused
used

He

Mannu

in

has

the

further

deposed that accused Ravinder Sudan @ Titu

has told Ashok Dutt that pistol was with
Shyam Sunder Sharma.
282.

PW94

SI

Brijender

Singh

has

admitted in the cross examination that he

has not verified the telephone number 001-

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.167
526-7751236 and 001-7184768403 nor he has
verified

as

to

whether

these

telephone

numbers were installed at the residence of

Ravinder Sudan

@ Titu or not. He has also

deposed before the court that he has not

verified

about

the

ownership

of

this

telephone at USA. He has also admitted in

cross examination that voices of Ravinder
Sudan as well as Ashok Dutt were not sent
for

examination to the CFSL to verify

that the voice belongs to Ashok Dutt and

Ravinder Sudan. Moreover PW 57 Ashok Dutt
was

examined

in

the

court

and

he

has

turned hostile and he has stated that he

had never dialed any number at America nor
he

had

America.

talk

So

with

the

Ravinder

evidence

of

Sudan
PW57

at

Ashok

Dutt is also of no help to the prosecution

and it has not been proved on record that
pistol was handed over to accused Ravinder
Sudan

by

accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

or

that the said pistol was with Shyam Sunder

Sharma.
283.
Prosecution has also examined
one expert witness CW1 Dr. Rawel Singh,
who
had
translated
the
conversation
between Ashok Dutt PW57 and accused
Ravinder Sudan into English and Hindi and
he has deposed that caller on the other

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.168
side has used the word ''Sangli'' and not
''Shyamjee''. So the evidence of this
expert witness is also of no help to the
prosecution.
284.
of

I also agree with the contention

ld.

Counsel

for

accused

Vikas

Yadav

that prosecution has failed to prove its

case against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

PW27

Pratap

Malik

has

deposed

before the court that accused Vikas Yadav

is one of the Directors in the company
namely

Yadu

Overseas

Limited

and

this

company has got registered office at Delhi

whereas its place of business is in Imphal
and other North Eastern states.
Vikas

Yadav

had

gone

to

Accused

Manipur

in

connection with the business and when he

came to know about his involvement in the
case he applied for anticipatory bail in
Imphal and bail was granted by the said
court. However,

on 26/5/99 Gauhati High

Court stayed the bail order granted by the

the

court

at

Imphal.

The

accused

surrendered before the court of ld. MM at

New Delhi on 29/5/99 and on the same day
court of ld. MM granted him bail in this
case, however Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
cancelled the bail order granted by ld. MM

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.169
against accused Vikas Yadav on 7/7/99. On
7/7/99 itself accused surrendered before
the

court

of

and

he

remained in custody upto August 1999.

On

13/8/99 the

MM

at

New

Delhi

Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered

him to apply for fresh bail before the

Sessions Court and Sessions Court granted
him bail in this case.

I am, therefore,

convinced that accused Vikas Yadav had not

absconded from the jurisdiction of court
and the police and I do not agree with the
contention of ld. Special PP that accused
Vikas

Yadav

had

absconded

immediately

after the commission of crime.

Accused

Vikas Yadav had applied for anticipatory

bail in Imphal and he has also appeared
before the court of MM.

He was available

to the Delhi police from time to time and

he had not absconded from the jurisdiction
of the court and the
285.

have

police.
also

gone

through

the statement of PW20 Beena Ramani who has

deposed before the court that she thinks
Amadeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas
Yadav were also present at the spot on the
date

of

Sidhartha

occurrence
Vashisht

along
on

with

the

accused

night

of

incident but she is not sure about the

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.170
presence of these three accused persons.
She

has

further

examination

admitted

that

she

in

the

had

cross

seen

the

photographs of all the accused persons in

the

newspaper

and

in

the

Television.

However PW20 Beena Ramani has identified

accused

Vikas

Yadav

for

the

first

time

before the Sessions Court after 2 and a

half years of the occurrence. And in her
statement before the court she has stated
that she thinks that he was present in the
party although she had only a glimpse of
accused

Vikas

Yadav

and

others

in

the

party for one minute or two minutes, so it

is impossible to identify such a person
after 2 and a half years in the court.
286.
the

I
statement

Sharwan

Kumar

already

been

foregoing

have

of

also

PW30

and

Delhi

his

rejected

paragraphs.

gone

through

Home

testimony
by

me

Evidence

in
of

Guard
has
the
this

witness is of no help to the prosecution

against accused Vikas Yadav also.
287.

have

also

gone

through

the statement of PW90 Sh. C.K.Jain CFSL

expert,

New

Delhi

who

has

also

deposed

before the court in cross examination that

the pieces of glass were sent to him for

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.171
examination of the same. Monogram S2 and

S1

are

of

the

same

company.

He

has

further deposed that he has not examined

the vehicle from where the glass pieces
were

recovered.

So

he

cannot

say

from

which vehicle the glass pieces were taken.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have already
discussed that even the recovery of glass
pieces have become doubtful. It has not
been proved on record that glass pieces
were recovered from Black Tata Safari.
288.

also

agree

with

the

contention of ld. Counsel for the accused

that no chance prints were lifted from the
Black Tata Safari bearing no.CH-01-W-6535.
It would have been a valuable piece of
evidence regarding a person who had used
Black

Tata

Safari

at

the

time

of

commission of crime but the police did not

lift
piece

chance
of

prints.

evidence

So
is

very
not

important

available

on

record.

289.

I also agree with the contention

of ld. counsel for the accused that the

witnesses examined by the prosecution with
regard to the abscontion of the accused

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.172
Vikas Yadav have also turned hostile. PW72
Lal Singh has stated that accused Vikas
Yadav

had

Hotel on
Singh

not

stayed

at

Sariska

Palace

9/5/99 similarly PW77 Gajender

has also deposed that accused Vikas

Yadav had never stayed at Sariska Palace

hotel on the aforesaid date.

PW54 Varun

Shah Manager at Shakti Resorts has also

stated

that

one

Suresh

Shekhar

had

visited their resort on 10.5.99 and not

accused Vikas Yadav.

So this witness has

also

the

not

supported

case

of

the

prosecution. It has not been proved that

accused

Vikas

Yadav

had

absconded

and

stayed at Sariska Palace hotel and Shakti

resorts after the commission of crime.

290.

have

also

gone

through

the

statement of PW52 Chandra Prakash Chabra

and

PW71

Harvinder

Singh.

Both

these

witnesses have turned hostile and have not

stated

even

single

word

implicating

accused Raja Chopra with the commission of

crime.

They

have

categorically

stated

that no vehicle was provided by accused

Raja Chopra to any
persons.

So

prosecution

the

against

of

the

allegation
accused

accused
of

Raja

the

Chopra

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.173
that he had harboured accused persons by
providing the vehicle to them

has not

been proved on record.

291.

also

agree

with

the

contention of ld.counsel for accused that

even if it is presumed for the sake of
arguments that the accused persons namely
Sidhartha Vashisht, Amardeep Singh Gill,
Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were present
at the party on the fateful night of this
occurrence they cannot be convicted simply
because they were present at the party.
There were more than 100 people present at
the said party on the night of occurrence.
Prosecution has failed to bring any cogent
and

reliable

evidence

against

these

accused persons connecting them with the

commission of crime.

292.

I also agree with the contention

of the ld. counsel for

photographs

of

all

the accused that

the

accused

persons

namely Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma,

Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas
Yadav were shown to the witnesses.

PW6

Malini Ramani has admitted in the cross

examination

before

the

court

that

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.174
photograph

of

persons

were

parents

i.e.

the

aforesaid

shown

to

Beena

her

accused

and

Ramani

to

and

her

George

Mailhot at the police station as well as

at Interrogation centre between 1/5/99 to
5/5/99.
Kumar

PW30

has

arrest

Delhi

also

of

admitted

accused

detained

in

Mehrauli

where

Mehrauli.

Home

Guard
that

persons

lockup
he

at

after
they

police

was

Sharwan
the
were

station

posted

at

PS

PW6 Malini Ramani and PW20

Beena Ramani have also deposed that when

they

visited

the

police

station

and

interrogation centre accused persons were

detained there by the police. So all these
witnesses

had

seen

accused persons
were

also

arrest.

the

photographs

of

and the accused persons

shown

to

them

after

their

In my opinion the accused persons

had rightly refused to participate in the

TIP

as

they

were

already

shown

to

the

witnesses. Conducting of TIP was only a

farce. Refusal by these accused persons in
the participation of TIP is justified.
293.
contention

I
of

also
ld.

agree

counsel

with
for

the

accused

Shyam Sunder Sharma that no evidence has

come against accused Shyam Sunder Sharma

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.175
regarding

his

involvement

in

the

destruction of evidence and for harbouring

the accused in this case. All the three
witnesses

PW57

Ashok

Dutt,

PW60

Baldev

Singh and PW68 Mangal Singh examined by

the prosecution

have turned hostile and

even in their cross examination conducted

by ld. Special PP they have categorically
denied

the

suggestions

Special

PP

accused

Shyam

commission

put

regarding

of

Sunder
crime.

prosecution that

by

the

ld.

involvement

of

Sharma
The

in

story

of

the
the

he gave Rs.70,000/- to

accused Ravinder Krishan Sudan to go to

America has not been proved on record by
the prosecution against the accused Shyam
Sunder Sharma.
294.

contention

of

also
ld.

agree

Counsel

with
for

the

accused

persons that no case has been proved by

the

prosecution

against

accused

Yograj

Singh, Harwinder Chopra, Raja Chopra and

Vikas Gill

as none of the prosecution

witnesses have come forward to state that

they

had

conveyance

given
to

food,

accused

or

shelter
had

and

harboured

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma

after the commission of crime.

Witnesses

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

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

commission of crime.
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

accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.

Thirdly, the story of the prosecution that
one person had fired two shots from the
same

pistol

stands

CFSL

report

New

contradicted

Delhi

and

FSL

by

the

report

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.177
Jaipur

which

states

cartridges recovered

that

two

fired

from the spot were

bearing different characteristics and were

of different size and were used from two
different weapons. Fourthly, the 25 rounds
which

have

been

shown

to

have

been

purchased by accused Sidhartha Vashisht @

Mannu

Sharma

are

manufactured

by

Kirki

Factory in India whereas the CFSL experts

have

proved

that

the

two

fired

bullets

recovered from the spot were made by CCI

company of USA.
chain

of

evidence

prosecution
bullets

So even this link in the

produced

stands

recovered

broken
from

by

as

the

the

the

spot

fired
do

not

link 25 cartridges which accused Sidhartha

Vashisht
from

PW7

Mannu

Naveen

Sharma

had

Chopra.

purchased

So,

very

important link is missing in the chain of

evidence produced by the prosecution.

296.

Prosecution has also failed to

prove that accused persons had used Black

Tata Safari Car at the time of incident or
that

they

had

come

in

that

Black

Tata

Safari car at the spot.

297.

Prosecution has also failed to

prove on record that the pistol used in

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.178
the commission of crime was handed over by
accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

to

accused

Ravindra

Krishan Sudan.

298.

Prosecution has also failed to

prove that accused Harvinder

Chopra,

Vikas

Gill,

Chopra, Raja

Yograj

Singh

and

accused Shyam Sunder Sharma had provided

conveyance,

food

and

shelter

to

the

accused persons and had also harboured the

accused

persons.

There

is

no

evidence

produced by the prosecution in this regard

to prove the charges framed against the
accused persons.
299.

Prosecution has also failed to

prove that accused persons had absconded

from

the

crime.

spot

after

the

commission

of

However, the accused persons have

rightly refused to participate in the TIP

as their photographs have been shown

to

the witnesses in this case.

300.

I,

therefore,

hold

that

prosecution has miserably failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt against
any

of

the

accused

persons.

All

the

accused persons are, therefore, ordered to

be

acquitted

against them.

of

the

offences

charged

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht etc.

page no.179
301.

Accused

Sidhartha

Vashisht

Mannu Sharma is acquitted of the offence

charged u/s 302/201/120B IPC and u/s 27 of
Arms Act.

Accused Amardeep Singh Gill @

Tony Gill, accused Vikas Yadav and accused

Alok Khanna are acquitted of the offences
charged
Harvinder

u/s

Chopra,

Singh and
the

120B/201
Raja

Vikas Gill

offence

IPC.

charged

Accused

Chopra,

Yograj

are acquitted of
u/s

212

IPC

and

accused Shyam Sunder Sharma is acquitted

of the offence

charged

u/s 201/212 IPC.

302.
Their bail bonds and surety
bonds
are
cancelled.
Sureties
are
discharged.
303.
Accused Sidhartha Vashisht @
Mannu Sharma is ordered to be released
forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 21st February 2006
(S.L. BHAYANA)
Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi