2010 (4) TMI 1095 - SC - Indian Laws

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

Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Versus State (NCT of Delhi)

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 ... Murder - Jessica Lal Murder Case - Presumption of innocence of an accused - Presence of the Accused at the Scene of Crime - beyond reasonable doubt - HC reversed the order of acquittal - Conviction u/s 302, 201/120B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life - Section 27 of the Arms Act - freedom of speech protected under Article 19 (1) (a) - principles of natural justice - The High Court in its judgment, on the one hand, explicitly referred to certain criticism/comments/remarks made by the trial Judge against the investigating agency, and observed that they were uncalled for and that they should have been avoided. But, on the other hand, the Division Bench itself while criticizing the reasoning in the judgment under appeal made certain sweeping remarks against the trial Judge. HELD THAT:- As per the disclosure of accused-Manu Sharma, the pistol was given to accused - Ravinder Sudan @ Titu (PO). It has been proved by the testimony of PW- 37, Martin Raj and PW-49-Inspector Mahender Singh Rathi that accused, Ravinder Sudan @ Titu left the country by Gulf Airways on 04.05.1999. Accused-Manu Sharma surrendered on 06.05.1999 only after accused Ravinder Sudan @ Titu left the country. It is pointed out by the State that calls were made from PCO, Ambala and PCO Hazrat Nizamuddin which have been duly proved by the testimony of PW-36, Ram Lal Jagdev, PW-16-Raj Narain Singh, PW-17-Mohd. Jaffar. This conduct of accused-Manu Sharma which is relevant and admissible u/s 8 of the Indian Evidence Act an adverse inference has to be drawn against Manu Sharma for this conduct. In the present case, various articles in the print media had appeared even during the pendency of the matter before the High Court which again gave rise to unnecessary controversies and apparently, had an effect of interfering with the administration of criminal justice. We would certainly caution all modes of media to extend their cooperation to ensure fair investigation, trial, defence of accused and non interference in the administration of justice in matters sub judice. Summary of our Conclusion: The appellate Court has all the necessary powers to re-evaluate the evidence let in before the trial Court as well as the conclusions reached. It has a duty to specify the compelling and substantial reasons in case it reverses the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In the case on hand, the High Court by adhering to all the ingredients and by giving cogent and adequate reasons reversed the order of acquittal. The presence of the accused at the scene of crime is proved through the ocular testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 6, 20, 23, 24 and 70, corroborated by Ex PW 12/D-I as well as 3 PCR calls Ex PW 11/A, B and C. Phone calls made immediately after an incident to the police constitutes an FIR only when they are not vague and cryptic. Calls purely for the reason of getting the police to the scene of crime do not necessarily constitute the FIR. In the present case, the phone calls were vague and therefore could not be registered as the FIR. The FIR was properly lodged as per the statement of Shyan Munshi PW-2. Delay in recording the statement of the witnesses do not necessarily discredit their testimonies. The court may rely on such testimonies if they are cogent and credible. The laboratory reports in the present case are vague and ambiguous and, therefore, they cannot be relied upon to reach any specific conclusion regarding the incident. The evidence regarding the actual incident, the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence connecting the vehicles and cartridges to the accused - Manu Sharma, as well as his conduct after the incident prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court has analyzed all the evidence and arrived at the correct conclusion. The public prosecutor is under a duty of disclosure under the Cr.P.C., Bar Council Rules and relevant principles of common law. Nevertheless, a violation of this duty does not necessarily vitiate the entire trial. A trial would only be vitiated if non-disclosure amounts to a material irregularity and causes irreversible prejudice to the accused. In the present case, no such prejudice was caused to the accused, and therefore the trial is not vitiated. No prejudice had been caused to the right of the accused to fair trial and non-furnishing of the copy of one of the ballistic reports had not hampered the ends of justice. The right of the accused to disclosure has not received any set back in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court has rightly convicted the other two accused, namely, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Vikas Yadav after appreciation of the evidence of PWs 30 and 101. Normally, the judgment/order should be set aside or affirmed as the case may be but preferably without offering any undesirable comments, disparaging remarks or indications which would impinge upon the dignity and respect of judicial system. Every effort should be made by the print and electronic media to ensure that the distinction between trial by media and informative media should always be maintained. Trial by media should be avoided particularly, at a stage when the suspect is entitled to the constitutional protections. Invasion of his rights is bound to be held as impermissible. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has established its case beyond doubt against the appellants and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, consequently, all the appeals are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Presence of the Accused at the Scene of Crime2. Phone Calls and FIR3. Delay in Recording Witness Statements4. Laboratory Reports and Expert Opinions5. Evidence Regarding the Incident and Conduct of the Accused6. Duty of Disclosure by the Public Prosecutor7. Conviction of Other Accused8. Judicial Comments and Remarks9. Role of MediaDetailed 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.