Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 (4) Crimes 757
DELHI HIGH COURT
R.S. Sodhi & P.K. Bhasin, JJ.
State — Appellant
versus
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006
Decided on 18-2-2006

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Gopal Subramanium, ASG with Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel and Mr. Ashwini, Mr. Ankur Jain and Ms. Rajdeepa Behuria, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Pt. R.K. Naseem, Mr. Manu Sharma, Mr. Harish Ghai, Mr. P.R. Mala, Ms. Latha Krishnamurthy, Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. K.N. Balagopal, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Mr. G.K. Bharti, Mr. A.P. Mukandan, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4:Mr. I.U. Khan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.D. Rana, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Ms. Arundhati Katju and Mr. Aman Khan, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8:Pt. R.K. Naseem, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 9:Mr. Vivek Sood, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1)Evidence of witnesses could not be disbelieved on ground that they identified culprits during investigation when police showed them photographs of accused and they identified accused in court during trial.
(2)Abscondence of accused could be utilized by prosecution as circumstance to strengthen its case against him.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections, 302, 201/120B and Section 27 Arms Act — Deceased and PW2, first informant were present in a private restaurant serving liquor where party was going on — Respondent accused No. 1 with other accused arrived — Accused No. 1 asked for liquor but waiter did not serve him liquor as party was already over — Accused took out pistol, fired one shot at the roof and another shot at deceased which hit her on head and she fell down — Other accused present with accused No. 1 then removed the vehicle from outside the restaurant surreptitiously and that vehicle had belonged to a company in which accused No. 1 was one of the Directors — Trial Court arrived at finding that prosecution failed to prove that accused No. 1 was holding a licensed pistol or that pistol used in crime was not recovered and recorded a finding of acquittal — State appeal — PW 1, present in the party, deposed about presence of all accused in party and his conversation with accused No. 1 that if witness could arranged liquor for him — Reasons recorded by Trial Court doubting presence of witness in party were hardly a rule of appreciation of evidence — Presence of accused was corroborated by other witnesses PW6, 20 and 24 — PW2, first informant, turned hostile and facts and circumstances showed that he was won over by accused — His credibility was totally impeached in cross-examination by Public Prosecutor — Testimony of witness could not be utilized to benefit of accused — PW20 was eyewitness and trial court misread the evidence holding that she was not the witness of occurrence — Witnesses identified accused during investigation by photograph and they had refused to join test identification parade — Their evidence could not be disbelieved on that ground — Accused No. 1 absconded for 6 days which was another strong circumstance showing his involvement — PW30 a Home Guard constable deputed by Investigating Officer to keep vigil on vehicles parked outside restaurant saw two accused taking away the vehicle from spot which vehicle belonged to Accused No. 1 — PW30 was a natural witness and was a reliable witness — Presence of vehicle there lend assurance to presence of accused No. 1 at restaurant — Two weapon theory from report of ballistic expert appeared to be a concoction — Prosecution charge of murder stood proved against accused No. 1 and removal of vehicle from spot by other two accused was in conspiracy with accused No. 1 causing vehicle, which was part of evidence, to be removed with intention to screening accused No. 1 and thus offence under Section 201 IPC stood proved — Though case was one that had shocked — Confidence of Society in criminal delivery system yet no material to suggest that convict could not be reformed or rehabilitated — Murder was without
       pre-meditation — Sentence of life imprisonment with fine Rs. 50,000/- awarded to accused No. 1 under
       Section 302 IPC and four years with fine under Section 27 Arms Act — Four years imprisonment with fine under Section 201/120-B IPC — Other two accused sentenced to four years imprisonment with fine under Section 201 IPC.
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 340 — Trial of murder case — As many as 32 witnesses including three eyewitnesses and one ballistic expert had to be got declared hostile — Courts must put an end to that kind of attitude of witnesses turning hostile to thwart course of justice — Expedite in interest of justice to take recourse of Section 340 Cr.P.C. — Show cause notices issued to those witnesses.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. S. Sodhi, J. — Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006 challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.2.2006 in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001, arising out of FIR No. 287/99, Police Station, Mehrauli, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of all charges framed against them.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted down in the judgment under challenge by the Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows:

That on 29.4.1999 at Qutub Colonnade at ‘Once upon a time’ Restaurant also called ‘Tamarind Café’ a Thursday party was going on. At Thursday party the liquor was being served by the bartenders, namely, Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi. At about 2 a.m. Shyan Munshi was present at Tamarind Cafe situated at Qutub Colonnade five six persons including one waiter were also present there, one person aged 30-32 years came out from the back side of bar and asked for two drinks of liquor. The waiter did not serve him the liquor as the party was already over. Jessica Lal and Malini Ramani who were also present there also tried to make him understand that party was over and that there was no liquor available with them. On this that person took out a pistol and fired one shot at the roof and fired another shot at Jessica Lal which hit her near her left eye as a result of which she fell down. Jessica Lal was rushed to Ashlok hospital from where she was shifted to Apollo Hospital. On 30.4.99 in the early morning hours Jessica Lal was declared dead at Apollo Hospital.

Charge u/s 302/201/120B IPC and also

u/s 27 Arms Act has been framed against accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma. Charge u/s 120B/201 IPC has been framed against accused Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna. Charge u/s 212 IPC has been framed against the accused Harvinder Chopra, Raja Chopra, Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill and Yograj Singh. Charge u/s 201/212 IPC has been framed against accused Shyam Sunder Sharma. Charges were framed and read over to the accused persons to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to support their case, examined as many as 101 witnesses. Of which, PW-1 Deepak Bhojwani, PW-2 Shyan Munshi, PW-3, Shiv Dass Yadav, PW-4, Karan Rajput, PW-5, Parikshat Sagar, PW-6, Malini Ramani, PW-7, Naveen Chopra, PW-9, Dr. R.K. Sharma, PW-10, Dr. Jasvinder Singh, PW-15 Sumitabh Bhatnagar, PW-19 Andleep Sehgal, PW-20, Beena Ramani, PW-21 ASI Madan Pal, PW-24, George Mailhot, PW-46, Madan Kumar, PW-63, Ram Avtar, PW-70 Rohit Bal, PW-79 Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, PW-99 Dr. Deepak Vats, PW-100 SI Sunil Kumar, CW-l Dr. Rawel Singh and CW-2 HC Ram Dayal are the witnesses whose testimonies have been discussed while the remaining witnesses were formal in nature.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was holding a licensed pistol of .22 bore and that he had purchased 25 rounds of cartridges from Haryana Gun House on 4.2.1999 and that the pistol used in the commission of the crime has not been recovered from Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma. The learned Judge held that the Tata Safari car bearing registration No. CH-01-W-6535 was registered in the name of M/s Piccadilly Agro Industries Private Limited of which Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was one of the directors. The learned Judge also held that Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khanna were working in Hindustan Coca Cola Company at the relevant time and were allotted Tata Siera car each. He further held that Tata Siera car bearing registration No. HR-26-H-4348 was allotted to Amardeep Singh Gill. The learned Judge also held that Amardeep Singh Gill was given mobile phone No. 9811100237 while Alok Khanna was given mobile phone No. 9811068169 by the Hindustan Coca Cola Company. The Court also held that telephone No. 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2006 (4) Crimes 757DELHI HIGH COURT R.S. Sodhi & P.K. Bhasin, JJ.State — AppellantversusSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma & Ors. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006Decided on 18-2-2006

Cases Referred (43)

Judicial Analysis

2006 (4) Crimes 757
DELHI HIGH COURT
R.S. Sodhi & P.K. Bhasin, JJ.
State — Appellant
versus
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006
Decided on 18-2-2006