Jessica lal murder case Jessica Lal 1965-1999Born5 January 1965 IndiaDied30 April 1999 (aged 34) New DelhiOccupationModelJessica Lal (1965– 1999)

• Slide 1

Slide 2 Slide 3 Jessica lal murder case Slide 4 Slide 5 Jessica Lal 1965-1999Born5 January 1965 IndiaDied30 April 1999 (aged 34) New DelhiOccupationModelJessica Lal (1965 1999) was a model in New Delhi, who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead at around 2 am on 30 April 1999. Dozens of witnesses pointed to Siddharth Vashisht, also known as Manu Sharma, the son of Venod Sharma, a wealthy and influential Congress-nominated Member of Parliament from Haryana, as the murderer. India New DelhiModelNew DelhiManu SharmaVenod SharmaCongressMember of ParliamentHaryana Slide 6 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. Slide 7 On 29 April 1999, Jessica Lal was one of several models working an unlicensed bar at a party in the Tamarind Court, which was within the Qutub Colonnade, a refurbished palace overlooking theQutub Minar 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. [1][2][3]Qutub MinarMehrauliRupees [1][2][3] A mlee followed the shooting, during which Sharma and his friends Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav, and Alok Khanna left the scene. [1] Thereafter, it was reported that contact could not be made with Sharma's family, including his mother, and that they were "absconding". [4] 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. [2][3 ]Vikas Yadav [1] [4] [2][3 ] Slide 8 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-Colain Chandigarh. [5]HaryanaD. P. YadavBina RamaniCoca-ColaChandigarh [5] 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. [3] [3] Slide 9 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. [3][5][6] [3][5][6] Slide 10 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. [6] 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. [2][7][8] [6] [2][7][8] Slide 11 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 suspeCharge ct. 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. [2] [2] Slide 12 According to the BBC, India has a "snail-paced judicial system" and its conviction rate is below 30%. [9] 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. [10][11]BBC [9]Shayan MunshiAndleeb Sehgalperjury [10][11] Slide 13 the trial judge commented after the outcome that the two cartridges, emptied shells of which were recoverThe court has acquitted them because the Delhi police failed to sustain the grounds on which they had built up their case. The police failed to recover the weapon which was used to fire at Jessica Lal as well as prove their theory that ed from the spot, were fired from one weapon. [11] [11] Slide 14 The HinduThe 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. [11]cartridges [11] Slide 15 Most noticeably among India's urban middle class, the acquittal has released a pent-up frustration with an often blundering and corrupt law enforcement bureaucracy and a deep disgust with the rich and famous who, by all appearances, manipulated it to their advantage. [12] [12] The reaction to the verdict was one of outcry. The New York Times described the situation a fortnight laterNew York Times Slide 16 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. [12]SMS [12] V. N. KhareV. 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 Slide 17 Sometimes when the police, the prosecution and the lawyers all have connections with the criminals, the judge should be slightly proactive. He should try to get to the truth, and not depend totally on the evidence provided in court. In a case like this, he is not going to get proper evidence. Mostly the judiciary is depended on the evidence provided by the investigative agencies, but now when the situation is so bad, the judges have to wake up, be proactive and find the truth. [9] [9] 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. [9] [9] Slide 18 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. [13] [13] Slide 19 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 expos as one who had paid money to some of the witnesses. [14] Facing pressure from the central Congress leaders, Venod Sharma resigned from the Haryana cabinetTehelkaSTAR News [14] Slide 20