This Article is written by Shruthi Reddy L (a 2nd- year student from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad pursuing a Bachelor of Business Administration and a Bachelor of Legislative Law (BBA LLB).)
Name of the Court –
Supreme Court of India
Name of the Case –
Siddartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma V. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation –
(2010) 6 SCC 1
Date –
September 3rd, 2001
Facts of the Case –
On 29-4-1999 Jessica Lal, who was a model and was working as a celebrity barmaid in New Delhi was shot by Siddartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma. This took place in Tamarind Café. The reason why he shot her was that he was denied liquor at midnight after the party got over. She was one of the several models working in the café. Siddartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma is the son of former Indian National Congress leader Venod Sharma who at the time of the shooting was a former minister of the national government. His father was a member of parliament in the Rajya Sabha during the 1990s. During the incident, he was accompanied by three of his friends – Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav, and Alok Khanna. It was reported that after the incident Manu Sharma along with his mother were absconding. The main reason for Jessica Lal for the loss of her life is just because she denied liquor. She was abiding by the rules and stopped the sale of liquor after 12:30 midnight. But around 2:00 Manu Sharma and his friends offered Rs.1000 for the liquor to be supplied to them. But they refused and out of rage Manu Sharma removed his rifle and shot at the roof. After that also there was a refusal for giving them the liquor at that point in time. And then he shot at her head which followed her death. After Jessica Lal was shot the police arrived after being informed. But by the time Jessica Lal was taken to the hospital. She was taken to Ashlok Hospital after which she was moved to Apollo Hospital where she was declared dead by the doctor at 4:37 a.m.
Issues –
The main issues in the case are as follows –
- If the accused was proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
- If the order of the High Court of convicting the accused was sustainable or not?
- If the trial court was justified in acquitting all the accused?
- Judgment –
This case revolves around an innocent woman who was shot on 24th April 1999 for denying liquor to the main accused Manu Sharma and his two close friends. Despite getting treated she couldn’t be saved and she died on 30th April 1999. The accused that is Siddartha was acquitted by the Trial Court but later the high court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result of which he was to undergo rigorous life imprisonment. Based on this decision of the court the accused has filed an appeal which was admitted and is awaiting a final hearing. Normally when there is Prejudice, the trial is depraved. But in the present case, there was no prejudice and hence the trial was not vitiated. The other two accused were convicted by the High Court. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and is in conclusion with the High Court. The High Court after it has analyzed the evidence after the incident has found the accused – Manu Sharma guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Though his appeal got dismissed and he is undergoing jail term on June 2nd, 2020 the accused – Manu Sharma was released on good grounds. After approximately twenty years of the incident taking place and after trials and investigation of the murder that took place at midnight in a bar, the final judgment led to the imprisonment of the people accused in the murder of Jessica Lal for the lifetime but eventually as mentioned after ten years the main accused was released on the basis of good conduct in prison.
