Sidhartha vashisht Alias manu sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1

Facts of the case:

On the night of the 29th April 1999 and 30th April 1999 at 2:20 AM, a telephonic communication
was made to the Police station Mehrauli, informing that someone in white shirt and jeans had
shot someone. A diary entry was made at the police station and Sub-inspector (SI) Sharad Kumar
and Constable Meenu Mathew left for the crime spot. After sometime, the Sub-inspector (SI)
Sunil Kumar along with constable Subhash left for the crime spot. When the police reached the
crime spot, they were informed that the injured was removed to Ashlok Hospital, SI Sunil Kumar
left for the hospital with constable Subhash. At the hospital SI Sunil met Beena Ramani (owner
of the restaurant) and questioned her on the incident. She directed the officers to talk to Shyam
Munshi saying that he knew everything about the incident that occurred. The statement of Shyam
Munshi was recorded and an endorsement was made of the same for the registration of FIR. At
30th April 1999, 4 AM, FIR at Police Station Mehrauli was registered. In the meanwhile, Jessica
Lal had been shifted to Apollo Hospital. Afterwards, SI Sunil came back to the crime spot where
he was informed about the lifting of the black safari from the spot. Two empty cartridges were
seized and a supplementary statement was made by Shyam Munshi. On 30th April 1999, 5:45
AM, information was received that the injured Jessica Lal died at Apollo Hospital. Charges were
changed from section 307 to section 302 IPC/201/120B IPC and under section 27 of the Arms
Act against Manu Sharma (accused), charges under section 201/120B IPC against Vikas Yadav,
Tony Gill and Alok Khanna and charges under section 212 IPC were charged against Havinder
Chopra, Raja Chopra, Ruby Gill and Yograj Singh, hence the trial commenced. All the Nine
accused were acquitted by the trial court’s session Judge including Manu Sharma, which was
challenged by the prosecution by appeal before the high court. The High Court dismissed the
impugned order of the trial court of acquittal and convicted and all the Nine accused of the
case.An appeal was made by the accused before the present court, hence this case.

Laws Involved:

1. Section 302 and section 201 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which
defines the offence of murder and casuing disapperence of evidences or providing false
information read with criminal conspiracy. Section 302 and 201 read with 120B of IPC
Section 27 Arms Act defines punishment for using guns. Section 212 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1973 IPC defines the punishment for offences of harbouring or concealing any
person who knows or has a reason to believe to be an offender.

Issues dealt in the case:

1. Whether the prosecution was able to establish its case against all the accused beyond
reasonable doubt?

2.  Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting all the accused?
 3. Whether the order of the High Court of convicting the accused was sustainable?

Arguments of the Appellant

The arguments given by the appellant’s side were that his fundamental right to free and fair trial,
which is guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, was compromised during the
appeal made in the High Court against the order of acquittal of the trial court and that two
witnesses were controlled and pressured to support the case of the prosecution by registering an
FIR against them. 

TThe appellant’s side submitted that the FIR recorded on the statement of Mr Shyam Munshi is
not an FIR but a written statement. There were several observational errors by the High Court in
the ballistic report from CFSL, errors in disbelieving P.S. Manocha, that witness Shravan Kumar
is a planted witness.

Arguments of the Respondent

The respondent side submitted that the order of Acquittal of all the accused delivered by the trial
court was a commission of error and as being the appellate judiciary, the High Court was fully
justified in re-analysing all the evidence and witnesses and convicting all the Nine accused,
including Manu Sharma, with the fitting sentences. 

The respondent side further submitted the documentary evidence and other legal principles
stating that the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court are agreed by the
respondents and prayed that no changes or interference should be done by this court, and
dismissal of the appeals of the accuseds.

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the appellate court had all the requisite power to re-evaluate all the
evidence that was presented in the Court of Trial and reconsider the order of acquittal passed by
the Court of Trial and justifying the action of reversing the order acquittal with adequate
reasoning. 

The Court stated that the prosecution of the case did establish the charges against Manu sharma
and Eight other accused beyond doubt, and that the Supreme court is in agreement with the
decision of the first court and reversed the order of acquittal into one of conviction. 

The Supreme Court stated that all the appeals were devoid of every merit and were dismissed.

Reasoning adopted by the Court

The Supreme Court while answering the issues and providing the reasoning for the same also
provided clarifications for the contentions presented by the appellate side in front of the Court.
The reasoning provided by the Court was as follows:
  While answering the issue number 2 and 3, the court observed that the appellate court,
i.e., the High Court had all the satisfactory requisite power to again analyse the evidence
and the order that was passed by the Trial Court. Being the appellate Court, it had the
duty of looking into all the compelling and substantial reasoning provided by the lower
court. 

 In any case the Appellate Court reverses the order of acquittal, it should adhere with all
the adequate and necessary reasoning for reversal.

 The Court marked that the presence of the accused in the crime scene can be established
by the ocular testimony of 7 witnesses with the attestation of evidence presented by the
prosecution and the three communications made to the Police Control Room.

 The demarcation of first initial information provided to the Police to register the FIR was
given down by the Court that the telephonic communications made to the police can
constitute an FIR, unless those communications are not cryptic and vague in nature. The
calls made to the PCR just for the reason of getting Police to the scene of crime do not
necessarily result in the registration of FIR.

 Late recording of the statements of witnesses does not necessarily result in discreditation
of testimonies. If the Court deems fit they can rely upon such testimonies if they are
convincing and reliable.

 The Court did not rely upon the Laboratory reports that were presented in the case,
stating that they were ambiguous and vague and, therefore, any specific conclusion
cannot be drawn regarding the incident by relying upon those.

 The Court observed that the Guilt of the accused Manu Sharma was proved beyond any
doubt through the evidence presented as to the real incident that happened, the witnesses
testimonies recorded, the evidence which connects the vehicle and the bullet cartridges to
the accused. 

 The High Court being the Appellate court has analysed the evidence correctly and has
reached the right conclusion.

 The public prosecutor has a duty of disclosure under the relevant principles of common
law and other law, however, if a violation of the said Duty happens, it does not
necessarily vitiate the trial. The Vitiation of trial can only be amounted if the non-
disclosure results in material irregularity and prejudice to the accused. In the present case
no such prejudice has occurred to the accused. 

 The Court also mentioned that the High Court correctly convicted the other two accused.

Ratio decidendi 
The court held that the order of acquittal should only be interfered by the higher appellate court
when it undergoes some significant weaknesses and only if the court believes that the evidence
has been ignored or misread by the lower court. 

Breach of duty of disclosure by the Public Prosecutor, under the common and procedural law
Principles which are relevant, does not vitiate the entire trial. And telephonic calls which could
be considered as the first initial information are those which can not come under the term of
being cryptic and vague.

Obiter dicta

The case stated and discussed a crucial aspect of Communication of first initial information to
police. In the judgement it was observed that the two telephonic communications that were made
to the Mehrauli police stations were not clear about the commission of offence and were termed
as vague and cryptic communications, which cannot constitute an FIR. The Court held that
“Phone calls immediately after an incident to the police constitutes an FIR unless they are not
vague and cryptic.”

Conclusion 

In Criminal Procedure, there are many case laws defining different aspects of the code, and in the
part relating to the pre-trial procedure, the case of jessica lal is considered to be a landmark
judgement with the facts being a near to clear elaboration of the pre-trial process, with elaborate
reasoning on what can be considered the first initial information received by the police and can
constitute the FIR, search and seizure of the evidences, the verification and arrest of the accused. 

In this judgement the very main contention presented by the defence council was whether the
information received by Mr. Shyam Munshi should be considered as the first initial information
on the basis of which the FIR registered by the Police, because there were two more
communications made before that. This was answered by the court and a demarcation was set
over what information can constitute as the initial information of the offence. That being, the
information should not be cryptic and vague in nature.