Reporter’s Diary: A throwback to Jessica Lall?

Reporter’s Diary is a series that brings you interesting snippets from court hearings across the country. It attempts to offer our readers a glimpse into interactions between judges and lawyers, and the observations made in cases of importance.

When a court gives the benefit of doubt to an accused, and finds him innocent of the offence of murder, one is reminded of the Jessica Lall murder case, from which the phrase ‘No one killed Jessica’ originated.

Model Jessica Lall was shot dead on April 29, 1999 by the son of a Haryana Congress leader, Manu Sharma, after she refused to serve a drink to him at a late night party at a restaurant in south Delhi.

In the Jessica case, the trial court verdict holding the accused to be not guilty appeared unconvincing, as key eye witnesses had turned hostile. The high court, however, turned on circumstantial evidence to convict Lall’s killer, Manu Sharma, who is still serving his sentence of life imprisonment.

On November 20, a similar case was decided by the Supreme Court, which acquitted two murder accused who were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, by both the trial court and the high court.  The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, giving them the benefit of doubt.

In Hardip Singh v. The State of Punjab, the Bench of the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants. The Bench noted that the conviction “appears to have been based” on the sole testimony of Sukhwant Kaur, who is the wife of the deceased and was examined as an eye-witness by the prosecution.

Those who are familiar with the facts of the trial and the appeal in the Manu Sharma case may notice some similarities with this case.

The Supreme Court Bench found that in Hardip Singh, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was held. (In the Jessica Lall case too, Manu Sharma refused to participate in the TIP, because he claimed that the media had prejudiced the witnesses by showing/publishing his photograph several times). The identification was made in Court after a period of one and half years of the incident, the Bench further noted. It is not clear whether the Bench found this delay a crucial factor in favour of acquittal of the accused.

According to the wife of the deceased, she could recollect the names of the accused persons from people who were present on the spot.

“No such person/persons present at the spot was/were examined by the prosecution”, the Bench disclosed.

This indeed appears to be a serious omission on the part of the prosecution.

The Bench noted that she had categorically admitted that she did not know the accused from before, neither did she know the particulars of the residential houses and their names and the names of their fathers. She also purportedly admitted that she was not aware of the names of the family members of the accused persons. It is not clear whether the Bench considered this admission going against the conviction of the accused. It thus concluded,

“In the totality of the facts set out above, we have serious doubt as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it is the accused and none else who had committed the crime. The infirmity in the prosecution case with regard to the identity of the accused is sufficient to enable the court to hold that the benefit of the doubt that the Court entertains should go in favour of the accused persons.”   

The conviction of the accused appellants and the sentence imposed were thus set aside, and their release from prison was directed forthwith.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana had confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused on August 17, 2009.  That the accused spent nearly nine years in prison, while their appeal has been pending in the Apex Court since 2010, is a sad commentary on the criminal justice system. For the relatives of the deceased, however, the fact that it is not a high-profile case like that of Jessica Lall, may explain why the murder will still remain a mystery, despite the Supreme Court disposing it nine years after the High Court verdict.