Case against Manu and the final verdict
Case against Manu and the final verdict.india Updated: Dec 19, 2006 02:24 IST
Evidence against manu
Prosecution: There is sufficient incriminating circumstantial evidence to convict Manu Sharma
Trial Court: Police framed Manu. Prosecution failed to prove case
High Court: An immature assessment of material on record by the trial court, self contradictory and not sustainable. Prosecution has proved the guilt
Prosecution: Presence of Manu, Vikas, Amardeep and Alok at Qutub Colonnade proved by witnesses
Trial Court: Proved from deposition of Bina, Malini, George and Bhojwani. But mere presence is not incriminating.
High Court: Witnesses have proved his presence.
Prosecution: Guests had seen Manu shoot Jessica
Trial Court: None of them stated that they saw Manu fire at Jessica.
High Court: Bina Ramani saw Manu firing the fatal shot which hit Jessica
Prosecution: Jessica shot as she denied liquor to Manu
Trial Court: Whatever the motive, the prosecution could not link it to Manu
High Court: Eye witnesses proved that denial of liquor was the issue
Bina as key witness
Prosecution: She heard the gun shot, saw Jessica falling, saw a fair chubby man in a white T-shirt running away, asked why he had shot Jessica and told him to hand over the gun.
Trial Court: Bina of no help to prosecution. Her evidence weak.
High Court: Clearly said she had seen Manu shoot Jessica.
Malini proved motive
Prosecution: Malini a key witness to prove the motive. Was standing with Jessica when Manu had an argument with her following denial of liquor.
Trial Court: Malini does not advance prosecution case. In the court she said Manu just looked like that person but she was not sure he is the same person who asked for drinks.
High Court: Her statement wrongly discarded. She is certainly a witness to identifying Manu along with four of his friends as also Manu having asked her for whisky and later misbehaving with her.
Prosecution: Shyan is a liar. He knows Hindi and is aware that police wrote what he had told them
Trial Court: Police may have put in the FIR many things he did not say. He cannot speak or write Hindi.
High Court: We cannot accept that the police would have concocted his statement. There is no doubt that he had been won over by the accused.
Prosecution: The two identified Manu in the court. George was witness to Bina chasing Manu. He himself had chased Manu for some distance. Bhojwani proved motive of Jessica denying Manu liquor.
Trial Court: George false witness. Had gone to the bar at 12.30 and came back after Jessica removed to hospital. Bhojwani a planted witness.
High Court: He has proved Manu’s presence. There is nothing to suggest that this witness had any motive to falsely implicate any of the accused persons.
Two persons fired
Prosecution: Two-weapon theory was a result of tampering at CFSL labs at Delhi and Jaipur and accused influencing Shyan to say so. Only Manu fired at Jessica.
Trial Court: Ballistic reports say two cartridges were fired from two different arms. Shyan also confirmed this.
High Court: The theory is a concoction and a manipulation of evidence. The very fact that empties were sent for examination after a long delay cannot rule out the possibility of foul play.
Prosecution: Manu used his licensed pistol for murder. Asked to produce, he said it is missing but no report lodged.
Trial Court: Manu cannot be linked to the murder without recovery of pistol.
High Court: He owned a .22 bore pistol. Empties of seized cartridges matched.
‘C’ mark bullets
Prosecution: Cartridges recovered from scene of crime, Jessica’s skull and Manu’s Tata Safari were of ‘C’ mark which he had purchased a month before the murder.
Trial Court: Records show Manu bought ‘KF’ mark cartridges.
High Court: Manu had bought ‘C’ mark cartridges
Prosecution: Manu absconded for a week after the murder
Trial Court: Manu was served notice on May 5, 1999. He surrendered on 6th
High Court: This is an important circumstantial evidence.
Manu not framed
Prosecution: Seniors told IO Surender Sharma that the car recovered in the case was being used by Manu
Trial Court: This means the IO did not have information but was framing Manu
High Court: Nothing to prove framing. His guilty firmly established