FACTS OF THE CASE

Situation at the Party.

On 29 April 1999, Jessica 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. Jessica refused to serve Manu Sharma, who
was with a group of three friends. Sharma then produced a 22 caliber 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.

Post situation after murder of Jessica.

A situation followed the shooting, during which Sharma and his friends — Amardeep Singh Gill,
Vikas Yadav, and Alok Khanna — left the scene. Thereafter, it was reported that contact could
not be made with Sharma's family, including his mother, and that they were "absconding". After
eluding police for a few days, with the assistance of accomplices, Khanna and Gill were arrested.
The murder weapon was not recovered and was thought to have been passed on to a friend who
had been visiting from the US and who may subsequently have returned there.

Famous personalities involved in the case.

The case by now involved several prominent people. Manu Sharma himself was the son of Vinod
Sharma, who at the time of the shooting was a former minister of the national government and by
the time of the subsequent trial, was a minister in the Haryana State government. Bina Ramani,
who had redeveloped the premises where the party took place, was a socialite and fashion
designer who allegedly had contacts in high places and whose daughter Malini Ramani knew Lal
as a fellow-model.

Destruction of evidence.
Amit Jhigan, an accomplice of Sharma, was arrested on 8 May and charged with conspiring to
destroy evidence, as it was believed that he had retrieved the pistol from its original hiding place
near the bar.

Arrest of Ramani’s family.

It had by now become clear that the party, which was claimed to be a farewell function for
Ramani's husband, George Mailhot, had in fact been open to anyone willing to pay. Ramani, her
husband, and her daughter Malini were arrested on the same day as Jhigan. They were charged
with operating an illegal bar and, although released on bail, had to surrender their passports.
There were several lines of inquiry regarding the family, including whether or not Ramani — a
UK national — had the necessary permits to operate a business in India. Another concern was to
establish whether or not she had concealed evidence by ordering the cleaning up of blood at the
premises, although by 19 May it had been announced that charges relating to this alleged
destruction of evidence could not be brought.

REASONING

INDUCTIVE REASONING

Inductive reasoning is formerly associated with informal logic or everyday argument. Its main
characteristic lies in the fact that it involves drawing uncertain inferences. The conclusion
reached in such type of reasoning is probable, reasonable, plausible and believable in nature. The
receiver or the third party determines the worth of an inductive argument. Inductive reasoning
involves certain offence but the conclusion drawn while dealing with the offences may not be
true because it is based upon facts and circumstances. It plays a vital role in drawing conclusion
in criminal cases. Generally in criminal cases, no proper conclusion can be drawn. Introduction
of inductive reasoning in such cases draws conclusion on basis of the circumstantial evidences
and relating it with the facts of the cases. It also employs hypothesis which means a proposition
made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. Inductive reasoning may
change even after derivation.
Circumstantial evidence means a combination of facts creating a network through which
there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any
inference but of his guilt. Such conduct of the accused was so knit together as to make a network
of circumstances pointing only to his guilt. His methods were his own undoing; because even the
long arm of coincidence could not explain the multitude of circumstances against him. It
destroyed the presumption of innocence with which law is clothed.

In the present case, inductive reasoning played a vital role. Inductive reasoning is based on the
testimony of the witness through which chain of events is formed and a conclusion is drawn. It
can be concluded that the testimony of the witnesses in inductive reasoning acts as hypothesis.
The same thing happened in the present case.

PW1 in his testimony said that the accused gave him a smile during the party. PW1 also talked
with the accused and the accused talked with him. He asked him about the drink that how he
could get it as drink was over. PW1 also gave information about the dress of the accused to
which he said that he saw a person wearing blue denim and a white shirt.

PW 2 saw the whole incident id est he saw the accused killing Jessica. He also gave the same
information that accused was wearing white shirt.

PW 6 was approached by the accused to ask for whisky which she refused. Due to her refusal,
the accused passed an immoral statement on her. PW 6 also gave the same piece of information
about the dress of the accused. Also she did not correctly identify the accused but the
information given by her was correct.

PW 20 saw Jessica while falling after Jassica had been shot down. PW 20 notices She notice
Shyan Munshi coming out. She also asked a young man whether he is one who shot Jessica over
which he left without answering and hence ran away.

PW 47 was inside the office of the café. He heard the shot of the incident and saw people
running here and there. After sometimes, he joined with PW 20. The testimony of PW 20 and
PW 47 support each other even though it is not supported by particular evidence. It is solely
based upon the information provided by the third party.
Inductive reasoning involved in this case is that the information provided by PW 1, PW 2 and
PW 6 about dress of the accused does not negate with each. The circumstances such as accused
asking for the drink and his dire need for drink, his act of running after Jessica was killed, his
behavior with PW 6 and the accused was also having gun with him. This lead to Court to
inductively reach the conclusion that accused shot Jessica. The evidence of PW-1 is relevant for
a limited purpose i.e., proving the presence/identity of Manu Sharma and his desire for liquor in
the party which part of evidence has also been given by other witnesses. It is inductive because
the third party is determining the worth of argument.

PW-6 that she came to know when she was in the courtyard, Shyan Munshi came running
towards her and Sanjay Mehtani, screaming that Jessica Lal had been shot. Thereafter, PW 6
fainted, thus, in the process, if PW-70 saw her screaming in the courtyard, it cannot be said that
there is any contradiction in the statement of PW-6 and PW-70. This way inductive reasoning
helped the Court to draw the conclusion through the chain of connection of the event.

The evidence regarding the actual incident, the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence connecting
the vehicles and cartridges to the accused, as well as his conduct after the incident prove the guilt
of the accused. This connection of circumstances and making chain proves the presence of
inductive reasoning.

In this way, the Court draws the conclusions through certain facts and the information given by
the witnesses which is an important characteristic of inductive reasoning. Here the case was
relied upon the testimony of the witness. In this case, it was come to be known that many
witnesses turned hostile which shows the direct implication of inductive reasoning. Inductive
reasoning may change even after derivation and the same happened to turning of hostile by
the witnesses.

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Deductive reasoning is associated with formal logic. Formal logic includes law and fact. It
involves reasoning known from certain premises presumed to be true to reach a certain
conclusion. The conclusion reached is certain, inevitable and inescapable. It is form or structure
of deductive argument that determines its validity. The fundamental property of a valid deductive
argument is that if the premises are true, then conclusion necessarily follows. Deductive
argument is either valid or invalid. It can never be “sort of valid”. If the reasoning employed in
an argument valid and the argument of valid and the argument’s premises are true, then the
argument is said to be true. Generally in criminal cases, the wrong is supported by a particular
piece of evidence. It can never be changed once derived.

In this case, 7 sheets of papers i.e. inquest papers, request of post-mortem, inquest report, copy of
FIR, brief facts of the case, were submitted to him along with the dead body. He informed that
the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was head injury due to firearm; injury
was ante-mortem in nature. He also deposed that Injury No. 3 was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.

The court held that It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that:

 Manu Sharma accused was the owner and possessed .22" P. Berretta Pistol made in Italy.
 Two empty cartridges cases of the .22" with `C' mark recovered from the spot.
 The mutilated lead recovered from the skull of deceased was of .22" and could have been
fired from a standard .22" caliber firearm.
 From the Tata Safari live cartridge of .22" with mark `C' was recovered on 02.05.1999.
 The two .22" cartridge cases from the spot and the .22" cartridge recovered from Tata
Safari have similar head stamp of `C' indicates that they are of the same make.
 The two .22" cartridge cases recovered from the spot are to be rim fired, rimmed steel
cartridge cases.
 The two .22" cartridge cases of `C' mark were lying near each other on the counter and so
could not have been fired by 2 different persons.

Through the observation of above two situation and their analysis, it can be inferred that the
Court deductively hold the accused liable for the crime as the evidences were proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The evidences passed through proper verification id est the evidences
cannot be changed because they were supported after the scientific analysis, et cetera.
Another aspect of deduction could be seen when the accused surrendered at Patiala Guest House,
Chandigarh in the presence of his advocate. The above evidence of the witnesses clearly
establishes beyond reasonable doubt that accused absconded after committing the crime and
surrendered after extensive searches were made.

PRECEDENT

A previous decision made by a superior court on similar facts - it requires that in certain
circumstances a decision made on a legal point made in an earlier case must be followed.

Declaratory Precedent.

Declaratory precedent says that judges merely declare what law has been. There is always a rule
but it just needs to be applied. Declaratory precedent is merely the application of already existing
rule of law. In case of declaratory precedent rule is applied because it is already a law. In this
case the decision of H.N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi1 was cited as the rule lay
down by thus case was that investigation usually starts on information relating to commission of
an offence given to an officer in-charge of a police station and recorded under Section 154 of the
Code. The judges applied this rule on the question raised by the Counsel for the accused and held
that investigation started only after receive of the information given by PW2.

Persuasive precedent.

Persuasive precedent means precedent which a judge is not obliged to follow, but is of
importance in reaching a judgment, as opposed to a binding precedent. Persuasive precedents
assist the decision maker in determining a case. Decisions of lower courts and foreign courts can
be persuasive precedents. The case of R. v. Ward (Judith Theresa)2 was cited. It is a persuasive
precedent. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that it was the duty of the prosecution to ensure
fair trial for both the prosecution and the accused. The duty of disclosure would usually be
performed by supplying the copies of witness statements to the defense and all relevant

1
(1955) 1 SCR 1150

2
199312 All ER 577; (1993) 96 CrApp R1 (CA).
experiments and tests must also be disclosed. It was held that the common law duty to disclose
would cover anything which might assist the defense. Non-compliance with this duty would
amount to "irregularity in the course of the trial" under Section 2(1) (a) of the Criminal Appeal
Act, 1988. This authority was raised in regard to fair trial. It is persuasive in such a way as it is
the decision of the non Indian court which does not have any binding value over Indian
Courts but it can be used to persuade or back the argument by proper reasoning. The same
happened in the present case.

Another case was also cited which is Mer Vas Deva v. State of Gujarat.3 It is persuasive because
it is the decision of lower Court but still it may assist in decision making. This case was cited to
prove that the statement of PW-2 which was taken during investigation and got signed by him is
not the FIR and is thus to be treated as a statement.

Original precedent.

Original precedent is that where there is no previous decision on a point of law that has to be
decided by a court, then the decision made in that case on that point of law is an original
precedent. When the court has to form an original precedent, the court will reason by analogy
(considering the cases that are nearest to it in principle). In the present case there are no such
instances that prove the case to be an original precedent.

Binding Precedent.

A precedent is binding if:

 The legal point involved is the same as the legal point in the case now being decided
 The earlier decision was made by a court above the present court in the hierarchy, or a
court at the same level which is bound by its own past judgments
 The point was argued in the case

In the case of A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian,4 it was held that every witness must be cross-
examined before being discredited. This precedent is persuasive because it the decision of lower

3
AIR 1965 Guj 143,
court which might back the argument. The prosecution cannot challenge the expert at the stage of
appeal when his testimony went unchallenged at the stage of the trial. It has been argued that the
Court must lay down in clear terms the duties of a public prosecutor i.e., to tell the truth even if
the same is in favor of the accused. This precedent was binding in such a way that the question
deal with the issue that every witness must be cross-examined before being discredited.
Although the facts of the two cases may be different but the legal point involved is same and
hence the decision is binding.

4
AIR 1961 Cal 359