Two crucial pieces of evidence in the form of the "missing" .22 bore licensed pistol of prime accused Manu Sharma and the seizure of the black Tata Safari vehicle were surprisingly overlooked by the trial court in acquitting the accused in the Jessica Lal murder case, the Delhi police has maintained.
In what is considered to be one of the strongest ever appeals made against the order of a trial court, the Delhi police has argued that Additional Sessions Judge SL Bhayana failed to take into consideration Manu Sharma's "failure" to account for the "missing" .22 bore pistol make P Baretta No B 56943 allegedly used to shoot Jessica on the fateful day of April 29, 1999.
Sharma took the plea in the court that the police had already seized the weapon on the following day of the murder which police said was baseless.
The appeal regretted that the trial court chose to believe Sharma's claim in this regard even though the accused failed to produce any evidence in the form of a prior complaint or statement to any authority about the so called seizure of the pistol.
"The falsity of the plea taken by the accused is evident from the written submission made by the defence that police had decided to frame him in the case only on May 5, 1999," the appeal noted.
{{/usCountry}}"The falsity of the plea taken by the accused is evident from the written submission made by the defence that police had decided to frame him in the case only on May 5, 1999," the appeal noted.
{{/usCountry}}In the case of the black Tata Safari allegedly used in the offence, the prosecution furnished material evidence in the form of the seizure report and FIR registered on May two, 1999, in the Sector 24 Noida Police Station.ssica case:
The fact that home guard Sharwan Kumar had noted down the number of the vehicle while it was speeding away from the scene of offence as mentioned in the FIR registered with the Mehrauli Police Station after the murder was not taken into consideration by the trial judge, the appeal regretted.
Quoting a Supreme Court observation the appeal concluded "the object of the court is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not about over technicalities," in an apparent reference to the trial judge's decision to acquit all the accused on technical grounds.