Jessica Lal Murder case

Jessica Lal (5 January 1965 – 30 April 1999) was a model in New Delhi who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead at around 2 am on 30 April 1999. Dozens of witnesses pointed to Siddharth Vashisht, also known as Manu Sharma, the son of Venod Sharma, a wealthy and influential Congress-nominated Member of Parliament from Haryana, as the murderer. In the ensuing trial, Manu Sharma and a number of others were acquitted on 21 February 2006. Following intense media and public pressure, the prosecution appealed and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings conducted over 25 days. The trial court judgment was overturned, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Lal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 December 2007

On 29 April 1999, Lal was one of several models working at an unlicensed bar at a party in the Tamarind Court restaurant, which was within the Qutub Colonnade, a refurbished palace overlooking the Qutub Minar in Mehrauli. By midnight the bar had run out of liquor and it would, in any event, have ceased sales at 12.30 am. After midnight, Manu Sharma walked in with his friends and demanded to be served liquor. Lal refused to serve Manu Sharma, who was with a group of three friends. He was ready to offer Jessica ₹ 1000 for it. Sharma then produced a .22 calibre pistol and fired it twice: the first bullet hit the ceiling which was to serve as a warning to Jessica not to refuse liquor, but when Jessica refused again, Sharma fired again and the second hit Jessica in the head and killed her.

First trial
Charge sheets were filed with the court on 3 August 1999. Sharma was charged with murder, destruction of evidence and other offences, while Khanna, Gill and Yadav faced lesser charges, including destruction of evidence, conspiracy and harbouring a suspect. Others similarly charged were Shyam Sunder Sharma, Amit Jhingan, Yograj Singh, Harvinder Chopra, Vikas Gill, Raja Chopra, Ravinder Krishan Sudan and Dhanraj. The last three named had not yet been apprehended.

According to the BBC, India has a "snail-paced judicial system" and its conviction rate is below 30%. Seven years after the case was opened, on 21 February 2006, nine of the twelve accused were acquitted, including Sharma. Jhingan had already been discharged and both Ravinder Kishan Sudan and Dhanraj, were still at large. The prosecution had been affected by 32 of their witnesses becoming "hostile". These included Shayan Munshi, Andleeb Sehgal, Karan Rajput, Shiv Lal Yadav and two ballistics experts, Roop Singh and Prem Sagar. Subsequently, in February 2011, it was announced that all 32 would be facing charges for perjury.

The trial judge commented after the outcome that The court has acquitted them because the Delhi police failed to sustain the grounds on which they had built up their case. The 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.

Reaction to acquittal
The reaction to the verdict was one of outcry.The New York Times described the situation a fortnight laterMost noticeably among India's urban middle class, the acquittal has released a pent-up frustration with an often blundering and corrupt law enforcement bureaucracy and a deep disgust with the rich and famous who, by all appearances, manipulated it to their advantage.

There were numerous protest campaigns, including ones involving SMS and email, seeking to obtain redress for the perceived miscarriage of justice. Rallies and marches took place, as well as candelit vigils.The protests and candle light vigils were led by Prabhloch Singh, the founder of an organization called the "Middle Finger Protests", also known as "Human Rights Protection Group" from Manu Sharma's hometown Chandigarh. V. N. Khare, a former Chief Justice of India, implicitly criticized the trial judge, saying that it should have been an "open and shut" case and that Sometimes when the police, the prosecution and the lawyers all have connections with the criminals, the judge should be slightly proactive. He should try to get to the truth, and not depend totally on the evidence provided in court. In a case like this, he is not going to get proper evidence. Mostly the judiciary is depended on the evidence provided by the investigative agencies, but now when the situation is so bad, the judges have to wake up, be proactive and find the truth.

The Delhi police commissioner announced an investigation to determine where things had gone wrong, and said that among other things it would examine whether there had been a conspiracy, including possibly by tampering with the evidence.

Appeal and conviction in High Court
The police petitioned the High Court for a review of the case and on 22 March 2006 the court issued warrants against the nine defendants who had stood trial. Eight of them were subsequently bailed in April, with restrictions imposed on their ability to leave the country. The ninth defendant, Gill, had not been traced since the original issue of warrants in March.

On 9 September 2006, a sting operation by the news magazine Tehelka was shown on the TV channel STAR News. This appeared to show that witnesses had been bribed and coerced into retracting their initial testimony. Venod Sharma was named in the exposé as one who had paid money to some of the witnesses. Facing pressure from the central Congress leaders, Venod Sharma resigned from the Haryana cabinet.

Judgement
On 15 December 2006, the High Court ruled that Sharma was guilty based on existing evidence, and also criticised the trial judge, S. L. Bhayana.

The judgement said that the lower court had been lax in not considering the testimony of witnesses such as Bina Ramani and Deepak Bhojwani, stating regarding the treatment of the latter's evidence that, "With very great respect to the learned judge [Bhayana], we point out that this manner of testing the credibility of the witness is hardly a rule of appreciation of evidence. ... Obviously, this reflects total lack of application of mind and suggests a hasty approach towards securing a particular end, namely the acquittal."

In particular, the key witness Munshi came in for serious criticism. The judgement says, of his earlier repudiation of the FIR that "[Munshi] is now claiming that the said statement was recorded in Hindi while he had narrated the whole story in English as he did not know Hindi at all ... We do not find this explanation of Munshi to be convincing." Regarding Munshi's testimony that two guns were involved, the judgement says: "In court he has taken a somersault and came out with a version that there were two gentlemen at the bar counter. ... [W]e have no manner of doubt that on this aspect he is telling a complete lie."

On 20 December 2006, Sharma was punished with a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. The other accused, Yadav and Gill, were fined and given four years' rigorous imprisonment. A plea for Sharma to be sentenced to death was rejected on the grounds that the murder, although intentional, was not premeditated and Sharma was not considered to be a threat to society. Sharma's lawyer announced that the decision would be appealed in Supreme Court because the judgement was wrong in holding Bina Ramani to be a witness.

Parole for Sharma, 2009
On 24 September 2009, the government in Delhi paroled Sharma for a 30-day period so that he could attend to some matters relating to his sick mother and the family business. The parole was further extended by 30 days, during which he was seen partying in a night-club and his mother appeared at public functions.Sharma returned himself to Tihar Jail on 10 November 2009, two weeks before his parole expired.

Parole for Sharma, 2013
Sharma was granted a limited parole from 28 December 2013 to 5 January 2014. This was to allow him to sit for a master's degree examinations in Delhi.

Supreme Court confirmation of sentences
On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentences and said that The evidence regarding the actual incident, the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence connecting the vehicles and cartridges to the accused — Manu Sharma, as well as his conduct after the incident prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court has analysed all the evidence and arrived at the correct

conclusion.
Former Solicitor General of India, Gopal Subramaniam arguing on behalf of the prosecution quoted Chandra Mohan Tiwari vs. State of M.P., (1992) 2 SCC 105 and Jaswant Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484 to establish his case. Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, who represented Sharma in the Supreme Court, assailed the High Court verdict, alleging that the media had prejudged the issue and conducted a campaign to vilify his client. The Supreme Court accepted that there had been an element of "trial by media" but believed that it had not affected the decision of the High Court.The judges who maintained the Delhi High Court judgementpronounced by Justice R.S. Sodhi, were Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Swatanter Kumar.

From November 2017, Sharma was shifted to an "open prison" due to his good conduct during jail time, meaning he was allowed to leave prison everyday and return in the evening. On 2018, Sabrina Lal, the only surviving family member of Jessica Lal, said in a letter to the Welfare Office of Tihar Jail that, she had no objection to the release of Siddharth Vashisht alias Manu Sharma as he was jailed for 15 years. . On 2 June 2020, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi allowed Sharma to be released from Tihar Jail following the recommendation of the Sentencing Review Board (SRB). The decision was taken by the SRB on 13 May under the chairmanship of Delhi Home Minister Satyendar Jain. His sentence was scheduled to expire on May 6, 2023.