PERJURY TRIALS REVIVED IN THE JESSICAL LALL MURDER CASE

"You can't allow anyone to come in, tell lies and walk off smiling from court," was Justice Sodhi's reaction after the SC verdict. Sodhi convicted Manu Sharma in HC and initiated the separate perjury proceedings.


Delhi police has submitted to the Delhi HC, a copy of the SC verdict in Jessica Lall case convicting Manu Sharma for murder, to revive perjury proceedings against witnesses like Bollywood actor Shyan Munshi, ballistic experts Roop Singh and Prem Sagar, electrician Shiv Shankar Dass amongst others, who turned hostile during the trial and changed their statements in court. 


The perjury proceedings had been halted while the SC was seized of the matter. standing counsel Pawan Sharma informed HC that SC hasn't dropped proceedings against them. Therefore, HC can now begin hearing the case. Following the submission, HC has posted the matter for February 18. In its 2006 verdict reversing the trial court acquittal, HC had asked the hostile witnesses before it to explain why they shouldn't be charged with perjury.

Later, the court put the proceedings - at the preliminary stage of issuance of notice - on hold because SC was seized of the matter. But the judges had made it clear the outcome of Manu's appeal would decide what happens to perjury proceedings against Munshi and others. "If he gets free you go free, if he is convicted you will be in trouble," the bench had quipped.

Readers will recollect that in its 2006 verdict reversing the trial court acquittal, HC had asked the hostile witnesses before it to explain why they shouldn't be charged with perjury. Later, the court put the proceedings - at the preliminary stage of issuance of notice - on hold because SC was seized of the matter. But the judges had made it clear the outcome of Manu's appeal would decide what happens to perjury proceedings against Munshi and others. "If he gets free you go free, if he is convicted you will be in trouble," the bench had quipped. 

Times of India reported that Senior advocate Aman Lekhi, is representing Munshi, in the perjury proceedings. Counsel for Munshi at this stage states The proceedings against Munshi is wholly untenable and completely devoid of any justification as The Delhi HC and the Supreme Court relied on Munshi's statements to convict Manu Sharma. The perjury notice ignores settled principles of law. Certain contradictions in the statements given to police and the court do not make him a hostile witness or a dishonest one. Perjury charges are not made out.

The Reminiscence Shyan Munshi’s  (Prosecution Witness 2), from the 2010 Supreme Court Judgment Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)  ((2010)6SCC1) is being reproduced .

Shyan Munshi PW-2

“…In the year 1999, he was studying in Indian Institute of Planning and Management at New Delhi doing his MBA Course. At that time, he was residing at 15/16 H. Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He informed the Court that he was acquainted to Malini Ramani through which he started knowing about Beena Ramani who is the mother of Malini Ramani. He had visited Tamarind Cafi on the night of 29^thApril, 1999. It was Thursday Night. He was attending the Party at that night. Alcohol and food were being served there on paying for coupons. In categorical terms he informed the Court that--

I was attending the party there on that night. Alcohol and food was being sold there on coupons. I had met Jessica Lal on that night in the party. I had acquaintance with her from before. The place where the party was going on was known as Qutub Colonnade Tamarind Court. There was miniature bar counter outside in the open space where liquor was being served. Besides Jessica Lal and Malini there were other few persons who were helping in serving liquor. On that night, I did go inside the Tamarind Cafi. It might be 2 o'clock at that time, I mean 2 a.m. There were about 6-7 persons inside the cafi at that time.

I went inside the cafi primarily with a view to eat something as I was feeling hungry and also nothing was being served outside. I found that Jessica was inside. At that time, no other lady was there. I went behind the counter to get something to eat. I managed to get pastry lying in the freeze and when I was taking it, a gentleman with white tea-shirt came there. He asked the waiter to serve him two drinks. The waiter did not pay attention to that gentleman and became busy in cleaning up. Jessica was also there on the other side of the counter and she told the gentleman that the party was over and there was no alcohol to be served. At that time, that gentleman took out a pistol from the dub of the pant and fired a shot in the air. There was another gentleman on the other side of the counter, who fired a shot at Jessica Lal and she fell down. That gentleman was also wearing light colored clothes.

Since the present statement about "another gentleman" who fired a shot at Jessica Lal and she fell down was not the one earlier made to the Police, after getting permission from the Court, the public prosecutor cross-examined him. He stated--

It is correct that Beena Ramani and other lifted Jessica from the spot and carried her to the Hospital Ashlok. I went there later. In the Ashlok Hospital, police came there and contacted me and recorded my statement." "...I reached the Hospital at about 3:30 a.m. and my statement was taken at about 3:45 a.m. or 4 a.m.

He also admitted that he was in Delhi for about a year or so and able to understand spoken Hindi. He is aware of Beena Ramani as the proprietor of Qutub Colonnade….”

The analysis of the evidence of PW-2 shows that though he turned hostile but his evidence shows that he had visited Tamarind Cafi on the night of 29.04.1999. He also mentioned the presence of Manu Sharma. His evidence further shows that immediately after the shot Beena Ramani and others were carrying Jessica Lal to the Ashlok Hospital. In other words, his evidence did in fact  proved the presence of accused-Manu Sharma at the scene of offence.

To this extent, the prosecution relied upon his evidence and this was accepted by the High Court & Confirmed by the Supreme Court. Athough, in Appeal Mr. Ram Jethmalani submitted that High Court ought to have accepted his entire evidence in toto, considering his earlier statement to the police and his evidence before the Court, the Supreme Court was satisfied that the High Court was justified in holding that even if his testimony is discarded, the case of the prosecution would have hardly got affected. As observed earlier his evidence amply proved the presence of accused at the scene of occurrence at the time and date as pleaded by the prosecution.

It will indeed be interesting to watch for all criminal lawyers, as to how the Delhi High Court proceeds against Munshi, for the charges of perjury once the Supreme Court has given credibility to his evidence, which undoubtedly played a role in confirming the charges against Manu Sharma.