SC commences hearing in Jessica Lall murder case

Narrating the sequence of events for which he wanted the Bench of Justice Sodhi to recuse itself from hearing the matter,he alleged that from everyday hearing it was clear that the HC Bench was going to reverse the decision of the trial court acquitting Sharma.

“Justice Sodhi and his Bench had made up its mind that he (Sharma) has to go (to jail). From everyday hearing,it was clear that he (Justice Sodhi) had made up his mind,” he told an apex court Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and Swatanter Kumar.

The prosecution had alleged Lall was shot dead by Manu Sharma at the Tamarind Court Cafe restaurant owned by socialite Bina Ramani at Qutub Colonade in South Delhi on the intervening night of April 29-30,1999,where she had hosted a party for her Canadian husband George Mailhot who was leaving the country.

Jethmalani said that before the hearing of the appeal,a national daily came out with “negative” publicity publishing the accounts of some witnesses and even went to the extent of suggesting that “I have something to do with Justice Sodhi”.

The senior advocate said disturbed over such scurrilous attack he wanted the Bench to recuse itself from hearing the appeal but the judges refused and later much stronger ground for judges’ recusal came when it perused the transcript of the CD purportedly containing the confession of the accused which was not the part of record in the trial court.

He claimed a CD containing the confession of Sharma was prepared by the prosecution without his knowledge which was not used as evidence by the trial court.

The CD was part of the document before another Division Bench of the High Court which was suo motu examining what went wrong with the investigation into the case that resulted in the acquittal of all accused including Sharma.

The Division Bench had sent the matter which it had taken up suo motu to the Bench headed by Justice Sodhi who had opened the seal and after reading the transcript of the CD ordered the Registry to reseal it.

He said it was a stronger ground for Justice Sodhi’s Bench to recuse itself from hearing the matter.

“It was the duty of Justice Sodhi not to deal with this matter,” Jethmalani said.

Criticising the High Court judgement,Jethmalani said witnesses like Bina Ramani,who were never considered as eye witness by the prosecution,was relied on as an eye witness by Justice Sodhi.

The senior advocate contended though the ballistic report from government’s forensic laboratory was in favour of the accused which formed the basis of his acquittal,it was not relied on by the High Court.

The prosecution had made the case that out of two bullets fired from the point 22 pistol,one hit the ceiling and another got embedded into the brain of the victim.

However,ballistic reports pointed out that the bullets were fired from different weapons,he said giving details that the two cartridges recovered from the scene of the crime were of foreign made while Sharma had purchased Indian made bullets.

He claimed the site plan of the offence was also altered by the prosecution to suit its theory that both the shots were fired by Sharma as in the begining the police case was that a Sikh had fired from his pistol,who is the real culprit.

Jethmalani said the trial court had acquitted Sharma and others as all the key witnesses,including the eye witnesses,had turned hostile.

He said model-turned-actor Shyan Munshi,who was working as a bar tender at the party along with Jessica on the day of the incident,had not supported the prosecution theory and even Bina Ramani had in her statement during the trial said she was not sure whether Sharma was the same person whom she had seen walking out after the incident.

Jethmalani alleged the entire theory was concocted by the prosecution to implicate Sharma in the case and this was proved from the statement of other witnesses including that of Ramani’s daughter Malini who had changed her statement.

He said the first message to the police about the offence was given by fashion designer Rohit Bal,who was present in the party,but the story put by the police was totally different.

He said liquor at the party was served illegally after 12 midnight as under the law it could not be served after that.

The trial court verdict acquitting Sharma on February 21,2006,was set aside by the High Court on December 18,2008.

However,the high court had held guilty two other accused in the case Vikas Yadav and Amarjeet Singh Gill for destruction of evidence. They have also challenged their conviction and four years sentence.