CASE STUDIES
Freedom to Press has certainly been the foundation stone for Trial by Media. There has been plethora of cases which shows that the active role by Media has finally decided the judgment or been the greatest form of assistance. 1)
JESSICA
LAL MURDER CASE
FACTS
During the early hours of April 30, 1999, a thirty-four year old model named Jessica Lal was shot and killed at a private party in a South Delhi restaurant, allegedly for refusing to serve liquor to a guest after the bar had closed. The man in question was identified by three eye witnesses as Manu Sharma, the son of a senior Congress Party politician and former Union minister. After several days in hiding, Sharma surrendered to authorities in Chandigarh. In an interview with police that was subsequently broadcast on national television, Sharma confessed to the murder. This confession was later r etracted, and a plea of non-guilty non-guilty entered at trial. During the trial the three critical eye witnesses recanted ear lier statements made to the police, and twenty-nine witnesses of lesser importance did the same. One of the eye witnesses, Shyan Munshi, changed his testimony so completely completely that his revised statement was used as exculpatory evidence by the defence.
JUDGMENT
STAGE 1: TRIAL COURT
After extensive hearings with nearly a hundred witnesses, a Delhi trial court headed by Additional Sessions Judge S. L. Bhayana, acquitted 9 accused in Jessica Lal Murder case, on February 21, 2006. Those acquitted were, Manu Sharma,Vikas Yadav, Manu's uncle Shyam Sundar Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khanna, both former executives of a multinational soft drinks company, cricketer Yuvraj Singh's father Yograj Singh, Harvinder Chopra, Vikas Gill and Raja Chopra. In all, of the 12 accused, two, Ravinder Kishan Sudan and Dhanraj, were absconding while the trial court discharged Amit Jhingan at the time of framing of charges. The ground for the acquittals according to the court was one, ³The police failed to recover the weapon which was used to fire at Jessica Lal as well as prove their theory that the two cartridges, emptied shells of which were recovered from the spot, were fired from one
weapon, ; ³all three eyewitnesses listed by the police in its charge sheet, namely, Shiv Lal Yadav, an electrician at Tamarind Court, actor Shyan Munshi and Karan Rajput, a visitor at the restaurant that night, turning hostile during the trial´ , in addition to this the police also failed to establish a complete chain of the circumstances leading to the incident and trace the murder weapon which according to it, was used in the crime. Throughout his 179-page case verdict, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) S L Bhayana said that police sought to 'create' and 'introduce false evidence' against Sharma. The judgment repeatedly hints that the prosecution may have attempted, from the very beginning, to fabricate the evidence and present false witnesses, so as to render the case indefensible. In
conclusion, he agrees with "the counsel for the accused that on April 30, 1999 the police had decided to frame the accused," r ead the judgment. The judgment faulted the police for deciding on the accused first and then collecting evidence against him, instead of letting the evidence lead them to the murderer. Since the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond doubt, all nine accused were acquitted. ROLE OF MEDIA: THE ACTIVE TRIAL
In the immense uproar, hundreds of thousands of people e-mailed and SMS-ed their outrage on petitions forwarded by media channels and newspapers to the President and others seeking remedies for the alleged miscarriage of justice. Soon, NDTV news channel more than 200,000 cellphone text messages urging retrial. A poll conducted by the newspaper Hindustan Times showed that on a scale of 1 to 10, the public's faith in law enforcement in India was about 2.7 Public pressure built up with newspapers splashing headlines such as "No one killed Jessica", and TV channels running SMS polls. Models, fashion designers, friends, relatives and others held candle-light vigils at India Gate in New Delhi to protest the verdict, followed by an even bigger candle light protest accompanied by a unique week long t-shirt campaign (slogan: we support re-investigation of Jessica Lal's murder, let the truth come out) in Manu Sharma's hometown, Chandigarh. The protest in Chandigarh was led by a young self-proclaimed activist (who now heads a Fight for Justice and Rights Organisation called Human Rights Protection Group, formerly known as "Middle Finger Protests"). Hundreds of students, MNC executives along with retired IAS and Army officers participated in the protest.
Surender Sharma, the police inspector responsible for the investigation, was transferred from the plum Hauz Khas position to a bureaucratic post. The police have also launched an inquiry against the possibly deliberate ineptitude of their own earlier investigation. On April 18, 2006, the division bench comprising Justice Manmohan Sareen and Justice J M Malik released Manu Sharma on Rs 1 Lakh (USD 2000) bail. They also pulled up the Delhi Police and urged them to ensure minimal delays in the re-trial process.
STAGE 2: APPEAL AND CONVICTION IN HIGH COURT
On March 25, 2006, the Delhi High Court admitted an appeal by the police against the Jessica Lall murder acquittals, issuing bailable warrants against prime accused Manu Sharma and eight others and restraining them from leaving the country. This was not a r e-trial, but merely an appeal based on evidence already marshalled in the lower court. On September 9, 2006, a sting operation by the news magazine Tehelka was shown on the TV channel Star News, which stated how the witnesses had been bribed and coerced into retracting their initial testimony. Venod Sharma was named in the expose as paying millions of rupees to some of t he witnesses. Facing pressure from the central Congress leaders, Venod Sharma resigned from the Har yana cabinet. On December 15, 2006, the High Court bench of Justice R S Sodhi and Justice P K Bhasin, in a 61-page judgement held Manu Sharma guilty based on existing evidence. The judgement said that the lower court had been lax in not considering the testimony of witnesses such as Bina Ramani and Deepak Bhojwani. In particular, the key witness Shyan Munshi came in for serious criticism, and may be facing criminal proceedings. All 32 witnesses who turned hostile have been asked to appear before the court on February 21 to explain why they should not be tried for perjury. On December 20, 2006, Manu Sharma was awarded life imprisonment. The other accused, Vikas Yadav and AmarDeep Singh Gill, were awarded four years of imprisonment for destroying evidence. Manu Sharma's lawyer, R K Naseem said the decision would be appealed in Supreme Court, because the judgement was wrong in holding Bina Ramani to have been an eyewitness.
STAGE 3: SUPREME COURT
On the 19th April 2010, the Supreme Court of India has approved the life sentence for the guilty. The two judge bench upholding the judgement of the Delhi High Court stated that, "The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the presence of Manu Sharma at the site of the offence". Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Manu Sharma alias Siddharth Vasisth, in the Supreme Court, assailed the High Court verdict which had set aside the trial court judgement acquitting the accused. He alleged that the High Court Bench had made up its mind to hold Sharma guilty. Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium submitted that there was sufficient evidence against Manu Sharma for his involvement in the crime.
CONCLUSION
