While convicting Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lall murder case, the Delhi High Court endorsed the widely-held view that witnesses had been influenced and evidence manipulated at the behest of the accused. But more sensational was the court’s finding that Manu had tampered with even the trial court records.
The manipulation was part of Manu’s attempt to show that the police had seized his licensed pistol from his Sambhalka farmhouse on April 30, a day after the murder, to frame him.
It involved Manu’s counsel telling the court that the police had seized the gun and the seizure memo was not being produced in the court to suppress the fact. Manu’s defence lawyers claimed they had even moved an application with the Magistrate for a copy of the seizure memo that the police made to take away the pistol from the farmhouse.
The statement surprised Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, who appeared for the police. Subramanium said the document was “clearly a plant in judicial record” by the accused for use as alibi at a later stage.
The high court endorsed this, saying, “there is no reference to any such application in any of the proceedings of the Magistrate and any proof that it was pursued. We are in full agreement with the submission of the learned additional solicitor general that the petition requesting a copy of the seizure memo found in the records was a plant”.
{{/usCountry}}The high court endorsed this, saying, “there is no reference to any such application in any of the proceedings of the Magistrate and any proof that it was pursued. We are in full agreement with the submission of the learned additional solicitor general that the petition requesting a copy of the seizure memo found in the records was a plant”.
{{/usCountry}}The court said had the seizure been made, Shankar Mukhia, the guard at the farmhouse would have definitely lodged a protest with the police that they had taken away the weapon without giving a receipt.
The prosecution said since Manu had admitted to possessing a licensed pistol, the onus was on him to explain how it went missing, when he had not even filed a missing report. The Bench also noted that even during the investigation, when the police was seeking his remand for recovery of the weapon of offence, Manu had not claimed the police had seized weapon of offence.
“The story of the seizure of the gun by the police was an afterthought and a concoction,” the high court concluded.
Email Harish V Nair: harish.nair@ hindustantimes.com