The case, which saw several ups and downs with the trial court initially setting Manu free in December 2006, got finality on Monday with a bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and Swatanter Kumar finding no illegality in the 2007 verdict of the Delhi high court setting aside the trial judge’s acquittal order and sending the accused to jail to serve a life sentence.
Manu has been in jail since 2007 and had remained in judicial custody for nearly three years during trial before being released on bail. He altogether has already served jail time of six years. Since the high court order did not specify otherwise, a life term would normally mean 14 years actually spent behind bars, after which a convict would be entitled to assessment of his conduct during imprisonment to claim release.
The Supreme Court also upheld the conviction of two of Manu’s friends — Vikas Yadav, son of former Rajya Sabha MP D.P. Yadav, now a BSP leader; and Amandeep Singh Gill, an MNC executive — for helping Manu to destroy evidence. Both were sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by the high court.
Analysing the high court’s verdict on 11 parameters, on the basis of which defence lawyer Ram Jethmalani tried to dig “holes” in the prosecution case, the Supreme Court judges said: “We hold that the prosecution has established its case beyond doubt against the appellants (Manu, Vikas and Gill), and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the high court. Consequently, all the appeals (by the three) are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed.”
The 11 parameters discussed by the court include the appellate court’s power to reverse the trial court findings, presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, registration of the FIR immediately on the phone by a key witness (model Shayan Munshi), delay in recording statements not affecting the case, forensic reports on the two bullets being vague and ambiguous and hence not acceptable, circumstantial evidence such as the vehicle in which Manu reached the Qutab Colonnade restaurant belonging to him, and the cartridges recovered connected to him.
The court also took into account the “conduct” of Manu Sharma immediately after the crime, saying “it proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Supreme Court rejected Mr Jethmalani’s argument that not giving the ballistics report to his client during the trial had caused a lot of “prejudice” to him in putting up his defence. “No prejudice has been caused to the right of the accused to a fair trial, and non-furnishing of the copy of one of the ballistics reports had not hampered the ends of justice. The right of the accused to disclosure has not received any setback in the facts and circumstances of the case,” the bench said.
The court said that there was no doubt that Manu was the owner of the .22 Berretta pistol from which the bullets were fired, and two empty cartridges recovered from the spot.
“The mutilated lead recovered from the skull of the deceased was of .22 C mar and could have been fired from a standard .22 calibre firearm,” the court said, adding that from his Tata Safari vehicle live cartridge of .22 ‘C’ was recovered on May 2, 1999, and all these bullets had similar head stamp and were of the same mark,” the court said.
The detailed analysis about the cartridges was given by the court as Mr Jethmalani had raised doubts about the two bullets being fired from the same weapon.
The court held as “correct” the analysis of the testimony of key witnesses — event organiser Bina Ramani, who ran the restaurant, her daughter Malini Ramani, Naveen Chopra and some others present at the party.
The Supreme Court also had a word of caution for both the electronic and print media on coverage of sensitive cases such as these following the allegation by Mr Jethmalani that “trial by media” had caused a lot of prejudice to his client.
Though rejecting the defence lawyers’ argument that the media had prejudiced the case, the court said: “Trial by media should be avoided, particularly at a stage when the suspect is entitled to constitutional protections. Invasion of his rights is bound to be held as impermissible.”
S.S. Negi