Life imprisonment for murder upheld based on multiple eyewitnesses, phone/PCR corroboration, adverse disclosures and reliable forensic links

SC upheld the HC's reversal of the trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellants for murder and related offences, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The court found presence of the accused at the scene proved by multiple ocular witnesses and corroborative PCR/phone evidence, adverse conduct and disclosures by an accused, and reliable witness testimony connecting vehicles and cartridges to the offenders. Ambiguous lab reports and delayed statements did not undermine the cogent evidence. Non-disclosure by the prosecution did not cause irremediable prejudice. The SC cautioned media against trial by publicity and condemned disparaging judicial remarks.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Presence of the Accused at the Scene of Crime
2. Phone Calls and FIR
3. Delay in Recording Witness Statements
4. Laboratory Reports and Expert Opinions
5. Evidence Regarding the Incident and Conduct of the Accused
6. Duty of Disclosure by the Public Prosecutor
7. Conviction of Other Accused
8. Judicial Comments and Remarks
9. Role of Media

Detailed Analysis:

1. Presence of the Accused at the Scene of Crime:
The presence of the accused, Manu Sharma, at the scene was established through the testimonies of several witnesses, including PWs 1, 2, 6, 20, 23, 24, and 70. The testimonies were corroborated by a wireless message (Ex PW 12/D-I) and three PCR calls (Ex PW 11/A, B, and C). Witnesses described the sequence of events leading to the shooting of Jessica Lal and identified Manu Sharma as the shooter.

2. Phone Calls and FIR:
The court held that phone calls made immediately after an incident to the police constitute an FIR only when they are not vague and cryptic. In this case, the phone calls were deemed vague and therefore could not be registered as the FIR. The FIR was properly lodged based on the statement of Shyan Munshi (PW-2).

3. Delay in Recording Witness Statements:
The court found that delay in recording the statements of witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimonies. The court can rely on such testimonies if they are cogent and credible. The delay in this case was explained and did not affect the credibility of the witnesses.

4. Laboratory Reports and Expert Opinions:
The laboratory reports were found to be vague and ambiguous. The court held that these reports could not be relied upon to reach any specific conclusion regarding the incident. The expert opinions did not provide conclusive evidence about the weapon used in the crime.

5. Evidence Regarding the Incident and Conduct of the Accused:
The court found that the evidence regarding the actual incident, the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence connecting the vehicles and cartridges to Manu Sharma, as well as his conduct after the incident, proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court's analysis of the evidence was deemed correct.

6. Duty of Disclosure by the Public Prosecutor:
The public prosecutor has a duty of disclosure under the Cr.P.C., Bar Council Rules, and relevant principles of common law. However, a violation of this duty does not necessarily vitiate the entire trial. The trial would only be vitiated if non-disclosure amounts to a material irregularity and causes irreversible prejudice to the accused. In this case, no such prejudice was caused.

7. Conviction of Other Accused:
The High Court rightly convicted the other two accused, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Vikas Yadav, after appreciating the evidence of PWs 30 and 101. Their involvement in the crime was established beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Judicial Comments and Remarks:
The court emphasized that higher courts should avoid making undesirable comments, disparaging remarks, or indications that impinge upon the dignity and respect of the judicial system. The judgment should be set aside or affirmed without such remarks.

9. Role of Media:
The court highlighted the need for the media to distinguish between trial by media and informative media. Trial by media should be avoided, especially when the suspect is entitled to constitutional protections. The media should ensure that their reporting does not interfere with the administration of justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Manu Sharma and the other accused, finding that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were dismissed, and the court emphasized the importance of fair trial procedures, the duty of the public prosecutor, and the role of the media in ensuring justice.

---