Jessica Lal
Encyclopedia
Jessica Lal was a model in New Delhi
, who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead on 29 April 1999. Dozens of witnesses pointed to Siddharth Vashisht, a.k.a. Manu Sharma
, the son of Venod Sharma
, a wealthy and influential Congress
-nominated Member of Parliament from Haryana
, as the murderer.
In the ensuing trial, Manu Sharma and a number of others were acquitted on 21 February 2006.
Following intense media and public pressure, the prosecution appealed and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings conducted over 25 days. The trial court judgment was overturned, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Lal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 December 2006.
in Mehrauli
. By midnight the bar had run out of liquor and it would in any event have ceased sales at 12.30 am. At 2 am Lal refused to serve Manu Sharma, who was with a group of three friends, despite him offering her 1000 Rupees. Sharma then produced a .22 pistol and fired it twice: the first bullet hit the ceiling and the second hit Lal in the head and killed her.
A mêlee followed the shooting, during which Sharma and his friends - Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav
, and Alok Khanna - left the scene. Thereafter, it was reported that contact could not be made with Sharma's family, including his mother, and that they were "absconding". After eluding police for a few days, with the assistance of accomplices, Khanna and Gill were arrested on 4 May and Sharma on 6 May. The murder weapon was not recovered and was thought to have been passed on to a friend who had been visiting from the US and who may subsequently have returned there.
The case by now involved several prominent people. Sharma himself was the son of Venod Sharma, who at the time of the shooting was a former minister of the national government and by the time of the subsequent trial was a minister in the Haryana
state government. Yadav was the son of another state politician, D. P. Yadav
. Bina Ramani, who had redeveloped the premises where the party took place, was a socialite and fashion designer who allegedly had contacts in high places and whose daughter knew Lal as a fellow-model. Singh managed the distribution of Coca-Cola
in Chandigarh
.
Amit Jhigan, an accomplice of Sharma, was arrested on 8 May and charged with conspiring to destroy evidence, as it was believed that he had retrieved the pistol from its original hiding place near to the club. While he was remanded in custody, Yadav was still at large and it had also proved impossible to locate his father, who had promised to deliver his son to the police.
It had by now become clear that the party, which was claimed to be a farewell function for Ramani's husband, George Mailhot, had in fact been open to anyone willing to pay. Ramani, her husband, and her daughter Malini were arrested on the same day as Jhigan. They were charged with operating an illegal bar and, although released on bail, had to surrender their passports. There were several lines of inquiry regarding the family, including whether or not Ramani - a UK national - had the necessary permits to operate a business in India. Another concern was to establish whether or not she had concealed evidence by ordering the cleaning up of blood at the premises, although by 19 May it had been announced that charges relating to this alleged destruction of evidence could not be brought.
Yadav presented himself to Delhi police on 19 May but was able immediately to leave because he had acquired anticipatory bail papers. He claimed to have been in Bombay and elsewhere during the previous few weeks, and refused to comment regarding whether he had been in contact with his father. He admitted that Sharma had stayed with him on the night of the murder but denied being present himself at the Tamarind Club or having any knowledge of the events that had occurred there until the next day, when he told Sharma to surrender to the police. A complex legal situation involving his paperwork meant that the police did not arrest Yadav at that time. Subsequently, he had short spells in custody and longer periods when he was freed on bail, with decisions and overturnings of them being made in various court hearings.
According to the BBC
, India has a "snail-paced judicial system" and its conviction rate is below 30%. Seven years after the case was opened, on 21 February 2006, nine of the twelve accused were acquitted, including Sharma. Jhingan had already been discharged and both Ravinder Kishan Sudan and Dhanraj, were still at large. The prosecution had been affected by 32 of their witnesses becoming "hostile". These included Shayan Munshi
, Andleeb Sehgal, Karan Rajput, Shiv Lal Yadav and two ballistics experts, Roop Singh and Prem Sagar. Subsequently, in February 2011, it was announced that all 32 would be facing charges for perjury
.
The trial judge commented after the outcome that
The Hindu
newspaper also reported that the judge was aware that the prosecution was not assisted by the hostility of their witnesses, three of whom had seen the shooting, and by the fact that forensic examination contradicted police claims that two cartridges found at the scene were fired from the same weapon. Finally, the judge believed that the police had failed to provide a sufficient explanation of the chain of events which led up to the killing.
There were numerous protest campaigns, including ones involving SMS
and email, seeking to obtain redress for the perceived miscarriage of justice. Rallies and marches took place, as well as candelit vigils.
V. N. Khare
, a former Chief Justice of India, implicitly criticised the trial judge, saying that it should have been an "open and shut" case and that
The Delhi police commissioner announced an investigation to determine where things had gone wrong, and said that among other things it would examine whether there had been a conspiracy, including possibly by tampering with the evidence.
On 9 September 2006, a sting operation by the news magazine Tehelka
was shown on the TV channel STAR News
. This appeared to show that witnesses had been bribed and coerced into retracting their initial testimony. Venod Sharma was named in the exposé as one who had paid money to some of the witnesses. Facing pressure from the central Congress leaders, Venod Sharma resigned from the Haryana cabinet.
The judgement said that the lower court had been lax in not considering the testimony of witnesses such as Bina Ramani and Deepak Bhojwani, stating regarding the treatment of the latter's evidence that
In particular, the key witness Munshi came in for serious criticism. The judgement says, of his earlier repudiation of the First Information Report
that "[Munshi] is now claiming that the said statement was recorded in Hindi while he had narrated the whole story in English as he did not know Hindi at all ... We do not find this explanation of Munshi to be convincing." Regarding Munshi's testimony that two guns were involved, the judgement says: "In court he has taken a somersault and came out with a version that there were two gentlemen at the bar counter. ... [W]e have no manner of doubt that on this aspect he is telling a complete lie."
On 20 December 2006, Sharma was punished with a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. The other accused, Yadav and Gill, were fined and given four years' rigorous imprisonment. A plea for Sharma to be sentenced to death was rejected on the grounds that the murder, although intentional, was not premeditated and Sharma was not considered to be a threat to society.
Sharma's lawyer announced that the decision would be appealed in Supreme Court because the judgement was wrong in holding Bina Ramani to be a witness.
Sharma returned himself to Tihar
jail on 10 November 2009, two weeks before his parole expired.
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani
, who represented Sharma in the Supreme Court, assailed the High Court verdict, alleging that the media had prejudged the issue and conducted a campaign to vilify his client. The Supreme Court accepted that there had been an element of "trial by media" but believed that it had not affected the decision of the High Court.
New Delhi
New Delhi is the capital city of India. It serves as the centre of the Government of India and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. New Delhi is situated within the metropolis of Delhi. It is one of the nine districts of Delhi Union Territory. The total area of the city is...
, who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead on 29 April 1999. Dozens of witnesses pointed to Siddharth Vashisht, a.k.a. Manu Sharma
Manu Sharma
Siddharth Vashisht , better known as Manu Sharma, is a convicted murderer, serving life imprisonment for the 1999 murder of model Jessica Lal. Sharma is the son of the former Indian minister Venod Sharma....
, the son of Venod Sharma
Venod Sharma
Venod Sharma was a leader of Indian National Congress party from Haryana. He was a Minister of State in the Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution at in the Narasimha Rao cabinet ....
, a wealthy and influential Congress
Indian National Congress
The Indian National Congress is one of the two major political parties in India, the other being the Bharatiya Janata Party. It is the largest and one of the oldest democratic political parties in the world. The party's modern liberal platform is largely considered center-left in the Indian...
-nominated Member of Parliament from Haryana
Haryana
Haryana is a state in India. Historically, it has been a part of the Kuru region in North India. The name Haryana is found mentioned in the 12th century AD by the apabhramsha writer Vibudh Shridhar . It is bordered by Punjab and Himachal Pradesh to the north, and by Rajasthan to the west and south...
, as the murderer.
In the ensuing trial, Manu Sharma and a number of others were acquitted on 21 February 2006.
Following intense media and public pressure, the prosecution appealed and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings conducted over 25 days. The trial court judgment was overturned, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Lal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 December 2006.
Background
On 29 April 1999, Jessica Lal was one of several models working an unlicensed bar at a party in the Tamarind Club, which was within the Qutub Colonnade, a refurbished palace overlooking the Qutub MinarQutub Minar
Qutub Minar also Qutb Minar, is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Located in Delhi, India. The Qutub Minar is constructed with red sandstone and marble, and is the tallest minaret in India, with a height of 72.5 meters , contains 379 stairs to reach the top, and the diameter of base is 14.3 meters...
in Mehrauli
Mehrauli
Mehrauli is a neighbourhood in the South West district of Delhi in India. It represents a constituency in the legislative assembly of Delhi. The area is located close to Gurgaon.-History:...
. By midnight the bar had run out of liquor and it would in any event have ceased sales at 12.30 am. At 2 am Lal refused to serve Manu Sharma, who was with a group of three friends, despite him offering her 1000 Rupees. Sharma then produced a .22 pistol and fired it twice: the first bullet hit the ceiling and the second hit Lal in the head and killed her.
A mêlee followed the shooting, during which Sharma and his friends - Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav
Vikas Yadav
Vikas Yadav in Hindi विकास यादव is the son of the noted criminal-politician from Uttar Pradesh, D.P. Yadav, and his politician wife Umlesh Yadav, both of whom are currently member of the state legislative assembly in Uttar Pradesh...
, and Alok Khanna - left the scene. Thereafter, it was reported that contact could not be made with Sharma's family, including his mother, and that they were "absconding". After eluding police for a few days, with the assistance of accomplices, Khanna and Gill were arrested on 4 May and Sharma on 6 May. The murder weapon was not recovered and was thought to have been passed on to a friend who had been visiting from the US and who may subsequently have returned there.
The case by now involved several prominent people. Sharma himself was the son of Venod Sharma, who at the time of the shooting was a former minister of the national government and by the time of the subsequent trial was a minister in the Haryana
Haryana
Haryana is a state in India. Historically, it has been a part of the Kuru region in North India. The name Haryana is found mentioned in the 12th century AD by the apabhramsha writer Vibudh Shridhar . It is bordered by Punjab and Himachal Pradesh to the north, and by Rajasthan to the west and south...
state government. Yadav was the son of another state politician, D. P. Yadav
D. P. Yadav
Dharam Pal Yadav in Hindi धरम पाल यादव is an Indian politician, once described as the "unrivalled don of western Uttar Pradesh". He entered the state politics of Uttar Pradesh initially as a representative of the Samajwadi Party in 1989, held ministerial office and then joined with the Bharatiya...
. Bina Ramani, who had redeveloped the premises where the party took place, was a socialite and fashion designer who allegedly had contacts in high places and whose daughter knew Lal as a fellow-model. Singh managed the distribution of Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink sold in stores, restaurants, and vending machines in more than 200 countries. It is produced by The Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta, Georgia, and is often referred to simply as Coke...
in Chandigarh
Chandigarh
Chandigarh is a union territory of India that serves as the capital of two states, Haryana and Punjab. The name Chandigarh translates as "The Fort of Chandi". The name is from an ancient temple called Chandi Mandir, devoted to the Hindu goddess Chandi, in the city...
.
Amit Jhigan, an accomplice of Sharma, was arrested on 8 May and charged with conspiring to destroy evidence, as it was believed that he had retrieved the pistol from its original hiding place near to the club. While he was remanded in custody, Yadav was still at large and it had also proved impossible to locate his father, who had promised to deliver his son to the police.
It had by now become clear that the party, which was claimed to be a farewell function for Ramani's husband, George Mailhot, had in fact been open to anyone willing to pay. Ramani, her husband, and her daughter Malini were arrested on the same day as Jhigan. They were charged with operating an illegal bar and, although released on bail, had to surrender their passports. There were several lines of inquiry regarding the family, including whether or not Ramani - a UK national - had the necessary permits to operate a business in India. Another concern was to establish whether or not she had concealed evidence by ordering the cleaning up of blood at the premises, although by 19 May it had been announced that charges relating to this alleged destruction of evidence could not be brought.
Yadav presented himself to Delhi police on 19 May but was able immediately to leave because he had acquired anticipatory bail papers. He claimed to have been in Bombay and elsewhere during the previous few weeks, and refused to comment regarding whether he had been in contact with his father. He admitted that Sharma had stayed with him on the night of the murder but denied being present himself at the Tamarind Club or having any knowledge of the events that had occurred there until the next day, when he told Sharma to surrender to the police. A complex legal situation involving his paperwork meant that the police did not arrest Yadav at that time. Subsequently, he had short spells in custody and longer periods when he was freed on bail, with decisions and overturnings of them being made in various court hearings.
First trial
Charge sheets were filed with the court on 3 August 1999. Sharma was charged with murder, destruction of evidence and other offences, while Khanna, Gill and Yadav faced lesser charges, including destruction of evidence, conspiracy and harbouring a suspect. Others similarly charged were Shyam Sunder Sharma, Amit Jhingan, Yograj Singh, Harvinder Chopra, Vikas Gill, Raja Chopra, Ravinder Krishan Sudan and Dhanraj. The last three named had not at that time been apprehended.According to the BBC
BBC
The British Broadcasting Corporation is a British public service broadcaster. Its headquarters is at Broadcasting House in the City of Westminster, London. It is the largest broadcaster in the world, with about 23,000 staff...
, India has a "snail-paced judicial system" and its conviction rate is below 30%. Seven years after the case was opened, on 21 February 2006, nine of the twelve accused were acquitted, including Sharma. Jhingan had already been discharged and both Ravinder Kishan Sudan and Dhanraj, were still at large. The prosecution had been affected by 32 of their witnesses becoming "hostile". These included Shayan Munshi
Shayan Munshi
Shayan ShayaMunshi is an Indian model turned actor who made his debut in the 2003 Bollywood film Jhankaar Beats. Haylinwho is from KolkzimiVJ and actress Peeya Rai Chowdhary in 2006. Shayan has also been seen in music videos and films like My Brother Nikhil....
, Andleeb Sehgal, Karan Rajput, Shiv Lal Yadav and two ballistics experts, Roop Singh and Prem Sagar. Subsequently, in February 2011, it was announced that all 32 would be facing charges for perjury
Perjury
Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding. That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the...
.
The trial judge commented after the outcome that
The Hindu
The Hindu
The Hindu is an Indian English-language daily newspaper founded and continuously published in Chennai since 1878. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, it has a circulation of 1.46 million copies as of December 2009. The enterprise employed over 1,600 workers and gross income reached $40...
newspaper also reported that the judge was aware that the prosecution was not assisted by the hostility of their witnesses, three of whom had seen the shooting, and by the fact that forensic examination contradicted police claims that two cartridges found at the scene were fired from the same weapon. Finally, the judge believed that the police had failed to provide a sufficient explanation of the chain of events which led up to the killing.
Reaction to acquittal
The reaction to the verdict was one of outcry. The New York Times described the situation a fortnight laterThere were numerous protest campaigns, including ones involving SMS
Short message service
Short Message Service is a text messaging service component of phone, web, or mobile communication systems, using standardized communications protocols that allow the exchange of short text messages between fixed line or mobile phone devices...
and email, seeking to obtain redress for the perceived miscarriage of justice. Rallies and marches took place, as well as candelit vigils.
V. N. Khare
V. N. Khare
Justice V.N. Khare was Chief Justice of India from 19 December 2002 to 2 May 2004. He was a judge of the Supreme Court of India from 21 March 1997 until he was elevated to the position of Chief Justice of India....
, a former Chief Justice of India, implicitly criticised the trial judge, saying that it should have been an "open and shut" case and that
The Delhi police commissioner announced an investigation to determine where things had gone wrong, and said that among other things it would examine whether there had been a conspiracy, including possibly by tampering with the evidence.
Appeal and conviction in High Court
The police petitioned the High Court for a review of the case and on 22 March 2006 the court issued warrants against the nine defendants who had stood trial. Eight of them were subsequently bailed in April, with restrictions imposed on their ability to leave the country. The ninth defendant, Gill, had not been traced since the original issue of warrants in March.On 9 September 2006, a sting operation by the news magazine Tehelka
Tehelka
Tehelka is an Indian weekly political magazine under the editorship of Tarun Tejpal known for its undercover exposé style of journalism. Its cover price is Rs 20 per issue. The publication began in 2000 as a news website, Tehelka.com...
was shown on the TV channel STAR News
STAR News
STAR News is the Hindi language news channel of STAR TV based in Mumbai. The channel is a co-production of STAR Group and ABP Pvt. Ltd...
. This appeared to show that witnesses had been bribed and coerced into retracting their initial testimony. Venod Sharma was named in the exposé as one who had paid money to some of the witnesses. Facing pressure from the central Congress leaders, Venod Sharma resigned from the Haryana cabinet.
Judgement
On 15 December 2006, the High Court ruled that Sharma was guilty based on existing evidence, and also criticised the trial judge, S. L. Bhayana.The judgement said that the lower court had been lax in not considering the testimony of witnesses such as Bina Ramani and Deepak Bhojwani, stating regarding the treatment of the latter's evidence that
In particular, the key witness Munshi came in for serious criticism. The judgement says, of his earlier repudiation of the First Information Report
First Information Report
A First Information Report or FIR is a written document prepared by the police in India, Pakistan and Japan when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It is a report of information that reaches the police first in point of time and that is why it is called the First...
that "[Munshi] is now claiming that the said statement was recorded in Hindi while he had narrated the whole story in English as he did not know Hindi at all ... We do not find this explanation of Munshi to be convincing." Regarding Munshi's testimony that two guns were involved, the judgement says: "In court he has taken a somersault and came out with a version that there were two gentlemen at the bar counter. ... [W]e have no manner of doubt that on this aspect he is telling a complete lie."
On 20 December 2006, Sharma was punished with a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. The other accused, Yadav and Gill, were fined and given four years' rigorous imprisonment. A plea for Sharma to be sentenced to death was rejected on the grounds that the murder, although intentional, was not premeditated and Sharma was not considered to be a threat to society.
Sharma's lawyer announced that the decision would be appealed in Supreme Court because the judgement was wrong in holding Bina Ramani to be a witness.
Parole for Sharma, 2009
On 24 September 2009, the government in Delhi paroled Sharma for a 30 day period so that he could attend to some matters relating to his sick mother and the family business. This was in order that he could assist his ailing mother and attend to some matters related to his family business. The parole was extended by further 30 days, during which he was seen to be partying in a night-club and his mother undertook public functions.Sharma returned himself to Tihar
Tihar
Tihar is a five-day Nepalese festival celebrated in late autumn, which comes soon after Dashain. Two of these days incorporates the Hindu festival Deepavali, where one day is celebrated for goddess Laxmi and the other one is celebrated to worship brothers for their long life. However, all ethnic...
jail on 10 November 2009, two weeks before his parole expired.
Supreme Court confirmation of sentences
On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentences and said thatSenior advocate Ram Jethmalani
Ram Jethmalani
Ram Jethmalani, : राम जेठ्मलानी,: رام جيٺملاڻي born 14 September 1923, in Shikharpur in Sindh, British India) is an Indian lawyer and politician. He has served in various posts such as Union Law Minister and Chairman of Bar Associations...
, who represented Sharma in the Supreme Court, assailed the High Court verdict, alleging that the media had prejudged the issue and conducted a campaign to vilify his client. The Supreme Court accepted that there had been an element of "trial by media" but believed that it had not affected the decision of the High Court.