SIDDHARTH VASHISH (MANU SHARMA) VS STATE NCT OF DELHI 

CITATION	RESPONDENT
DATE  OF JUDGMENT	19th April 2010
PLAINTIFF	Siddharth Vashish @ Manu Sharma
RESONDENT	State NCT of Delhi
STATUTES REFERRED IN THIS CASE	Code of Criminal Procedure
BENCH	J. P. Sathasivam , J. Swatanter Kumar

 INTRODUCTION

Women have always been an integral part of Indian society; however, the security of women has always been a conflicting matter in question. The conundrum of women’s safety was again raised in the question of the JESSICA LAL murder case (SIDDHARTH VASHISH (MANU SHARMA) VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI). The horrifying event led to the demur regarding the undeviating laws of women’s protection in India. The Jessica Lal murder case is a high-profile murder case which included various influential and powerful personalities. Media played very important role in establishing a new order, and also, media proved itself to be an unbiased companion that led to the national drive for justice for Jessica lal

FACTS OF THE CASE

The incident took place at a place called the “Tamarind Cafe “at Qutus Colonnade. A Delhi-based socialite, Bina Ramani hosted a party for her husband, who was leaving for abroad.

 The deceased, along with the prime witness named Jessica Lal, was serving as the bartender, and after the persons came and demanded liquor, to which Jessica replied that the bar had been closed and the liquor could not be served.

After hearing this, ‘Manu Sharma‘ became arrogant, and he took out a pistol and fired two shots, out of which one hit the roof and the other hit Jessica, which led to an injury in her left eye.

Everyone who was present at the party noticed that there was something.

There was complete disturbance Bima Ramani asked Manu Sharma to hand over his gun. “Geoge Mailhot” ran towards the gate to catch a glimpse of the accused, but by then Manu had run away.

The other accused named “Vikas Yadav” Amar Deep Singh Gill accompanied Manu Sharma during the occurrence of the crime.

Jessica was admitted to the hospital and on 30th April in the early morning hours, she was declared dead by the doctor. 

.ISSUE RAISED

(i) Did the prosecution prove its case against the three defendants beyond a reasonable doubt?

(ii) Is the trial court’s judgement of acquitting the defendants sustainable?

(iii) Is the High Court’s order imposing a penalty in opposition to the trial court’s judgement sustainable?

JUDGEMENT

The statutory appeals were documented under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the last judgment and request dated 18/20.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi and in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006 whereby the High Court turned around the request for quittance dated 21.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judges Delhi in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001 and sentenced Siddhartha Vashisht (appealing party in Criminal appeal No. 179 of 2007) under Section 302, and Section 27 of the Arms Act and condemned him to go through detainment for life for the offense under Section 302 IPC along with a fine of Rs.50000/ to be paid to the group of the person in question and in default of installment of fine to go through additional detainment for a very long period of time and furthermore they condemned him to go through detainment for a very long time for the offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs.2000/ and in default to additionally go through detainment for a quarter of  the year.

 He was additionally condemned to go through detainment for a very long period of time for the offence under Section 201/120B IPC along with a fine of Rs.2000 and, in default, to additionally go through detainment for a quarter of a year. The High Court likewise condemned Amar Deep Singh Gill (the appealing party in Criminal Appeal No. 157/2007) and Vikas Yadav (the appealing party in Criminal Appeal No. 224/2007) to go through detainment for a very long time and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and, in default of an instalment of the fine, to additionally go through detainment for a quarter of a year under Section 201/120B IPC.

REASONING

The entire case depended on incidental proof which was framed by current realities of the case. Siddhartha Vashisht and Manu Sharma, out of resentment, fired a bullet at Jessica, and just to protect himself, he attempted to eliminate every one of the verifications against himself, which resulted in him being known as the cold-blooded murderer. Following serious media and public pressure, the indictment was claimed, and the high court directed procedures on the road to high courts, and day-by-day hearings led more than 25 days. He was condemned to lifetime imprisonment on 20th December 2006. Over the most recent two years, Manu Sharma had been moved to an open prison because of “good conduct” and was permitted to leave the jail at 8 am and return at 6 pm. On 6 June 2020 Manu Sharma was delivered from Tihar prison by Delhi LG on the grounds of good conduct.

Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal endorsed the untimely arrival of Manu Sharma, who is carrying out a daily existence punishment for a situation, as per an authority request.

The Delhi Sentence Review Board (SRB) suggested delivering 43-year-old Manu Sharma, who had consumed 17 years of his time on earth in prison, had been free from jail, but still under watch as a feature of measures taken by penitentiaries the nation over to forestall jamming in the Covid emergency.

However, subsequent to being detained for a really long time of 11 months and 24 days, he has transformed into a good human being.

CONCLUSION

The Jessica Lal case was a big shot case where many eminent people having political connections were involved. Jessica was a hard-working girl and would not have been killed if Siddharth, aka Manu Sharma, had control over his anger. He was just a fearless brat being a son of a politician.

Jessica would not have gotten justice if the media wouldn’t have intervened. The media played a prominent role in Manu Sharma’s life imprisonment. The guilt in Manu Sharma’s eyes while looking at Jessica’s family has truly served justice. The public and media outrage has made Jessica Lal’s case an excellent example of a case study. This case has shown every aspect of reality and has proved that justice delayed is not justice denied.

REFERENCES

1    https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=jessica%20lal%20case

2.   https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15240/1/constitution_of_india.pdf

3. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Jessica-Lall-murder-case-Chronology-of

This article is written by Trisha Aggarwal , an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.