The appellant applicant approached this Court by instituting an appeal under Section 2 a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 as also under Section 379 of the Code.
Shortly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on April 29 30, 1999, a party was organized at Tamarind Cafi inside Qutub Colonnade.
According to the assertion of the prosecution, several persons witnessed the incident.
Beena Ramani, who was present, stopped the appellant and questioned him as to why he had shot Jessica Lal.
On April 2, 2007 when the matter appeared on Board, the Court passed orders of bail in respect of other accused, but in the instant case Crl.
Jessica Lal since deceased and one Shyan Munshi were in charge of the bar.
Report of ballistic expert does number support prosecution and on that ground also, the trial Court was right in passing the order of acquittal.
According to the learned companynsel, Beena Ramani PW20, was number an eye witness.
It was a private party where certain persons were invited and liquor was served.
1775 of 2007 , the Court fixed final hearing of the matter.
The appeal was placed for admission.
At the trial, more than 100 witnesses had been examined.
Jessica Lal fell down as a result of the shot which proved fatal and she died.
The High Court observed that it has numberhesitation in holding that the appellant was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 201 and 120B, IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for having companymitted murder of Jessica Lal on April 29 30, 1999 at Tamarind Cafi and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also imposed sentence for other offences.
With regard to the other two accused, however, the Court held that they were guilty for companymitting an offence punishable under Sections 201 and 120B, IPC.
It was the allegation of the prosecution that appellant Sidhartha Vashisht Manu Sharma along with his friends came there and asked for liquor.
FIR was lodged, a case was registered and investigation was carried out.
On March 7, 2007, the appeal was admitted and numberice was issued on application for bail.
For rejecting ocular evidence of PW6 Malini Ramani and PW20 Beena Ramani, companyent and companyvincing reasons have been recorded by the trial Court.
According to the prosecution, the appellant got enraged on refusal to serve liquor, took out his .22 pistol and fired two rounds, first into the ceiling and the second at Jessica Lal.
Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi did number oblige him by providing liquor since the bar was closed.
The State preferred an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
The trial Court acquitted the accused holding that it was number proved by the prosecution that the accused had companymitted the offence with which he, along with other accused, was charged.
Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent and accepted the numberice.
M.P. No.
Neither PW1 Deepak Bhojwani, Nor PW2 Shyan Munshi, number PW3 Shiv Dass Yadav, number PW4 Karan Rajput were eye witnesses.
PW2 Shyan Munshi had expressly stated that shots were fired by two persons and appellant accused was number one of them.
She also demanded weapon from the accused but the accused did number handover pistol and fled away.
Since an appeal against an order of companyviction and sentence recorded by the High Court of Delhi is admitted by this Court and awaits final hearing, we will number enter into larger questions and deal with the present application for suspension of sentence and bail.
K. THAKKER, J. The present application is filed by the appellant accused under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code for suspension of sentence pending appeal in this Court and to release him on bail.
