Imagine, an innocent girl being shot dead in her young age. Imagine of her being murdered just because she wasn’t terrified of a socially wealthy and affluent man pointing a gun towards her. Imagine, her murderer being acquitted by the court, set free from all the charges and penalties after 7 years of her death. This might seem fictitious but, this has happened in the past. This was a case which exposed all the bugs and loopholes in the corrupted law enforcement bureaucracy we have here in India.
That night:
It was the 29th of April 1999 when Jessica Lal, a brave girl and model by profession was working at an unlicensed bar in New Delhi. By midnight the bar had run out of liquor and it would, in any event, have ceased sales at by 12:30 am. It was late midnight when Manu Sharma walked in with his friends and demanded to be served liquor. Manu Sharma was the son of a Congress nominated member of parliament and an influential personality Venod Sharma. Jessica simply denied serving liquor as the bar hardly had any. When Sharma didn’t get liquor, he produced a pistol and fired it on the ceiling to terrify everyone out there. On gunpoint, he again asked Jessica for alcohol and shot her when she denied. Jessica’s last lines for Sharma were:
“I won’t give you a sip even if you give me a thousand bucks!”
An innocent and sinless girl was killed in front of a dozen idle friends and witnesses. The murderer Manu Sharma soon escaped the murder site, but after shooting a girl in front of so many people, there seems no chance of him getting away with the laws. But, what followed by might leave you stunned.
First Trial:
On 3 August 1999 charge sheets were filed with the court, Sharma was charged with murder, destruction of evidence and other sever offences. But in the courtroom 32 witnesses turned hostile, they were either bribed or controlled forcefully by Sharma. Things become even worse when the police weren’t able to recover the gun used in the murder (it was passed on to one of his friends by Sharma). So, all these things bridged Sharma’s escape from the murder charge and seven years after the case was opened he was acquitted by the trial court. The truth was known to everyone out there, but Indian judiciary says what couldn’t be proved in the court is not true so, a murderer successfully took advantage of this and manipulated things to his favour.
Media getting into it:
The reaction to Sharma’s acquittal was incandescent. Most noticeably among India’s urban middle class, the acquittal released a pent-up frustration and a deep disgust with the rich and famous who, by all appearances, steer cases in their favour.
Media was now into it, the truth was known to everyone. Still, the accused was free, and that triggered revolutionary support for Jessica. There were numerous protest campaigns, rallies as well as candlelight vigils asking justice for Jessica.
Under immense pressure, the Delhi police commissioner announced a reinvestigation of the case to figure out where things had gone wrong.
Appeal in High Court:
On 22 March 2006, police filed a review petition of the case with the High court. There were regular hearings in the court for 25 days. A sting operation proved that the witnesses were bribed and they all were charged for perjury.
On 20 December 2006, Sharma was found guilty of killing Jessica Lal, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2010 the Supreme court of India kept High court’s decision. So, all the sacrifices and struggles did by Jessica’s family and everyone else involved in the case finally paid off, and justice was done.
Although, justice was eventually done but we all are aware that what could have happened if Jessica won’t have got this much of support from media and people. After all, every girl would not be Jessica, what would happen then?
This case justifies the 4th pillar of democracy that is the need for a responsible media. But at the same time, it exposes the flaws persisting in Indian judiciary. The shortage of the number of judges, the possibility of criminals taking advantage of the laws, snail pace, advocates doing injustice with their profession all these problems need a solution if we want to create an unprejudiced and flawless judiciary which everybody would have faith in.