Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Manu Sharma Finally Prematurely Released From Tihar Jail

Posted in: Criminal Law
Fri, Jul 17, 20, 15:16, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4559
serving life sentence for the sensational murder of model Jessica Lal in a city restaurant in 1999 is now out of jail after the Lieutenant Governor approved his premature release as well as 18 other convicts.

We finally see that Manu Sharma aged 43 years who was serving life sentence for the sensational murder of model Jessica Lal in a city restaurant in 1999 is now out of jail after the Lieutenant Governor approved his premature release as well as 18 other convicts. Following the May 28 order of the Delhi government in the name of L-G Anil Baijal, Director General (Prisons) Sandeep Goel said Manu Sharma was released on June 1 after completing all formalities pertaining to prisoners permanently released from the jail. Manu Sharma also known as Siddhartha Vashishtha was numbered 18 on the list.

To be sure, the order of Manu Sharma release said that, In exercise of the power conferred by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..the Lt Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to remit the un-expired portion of the sentence of the following 19..life convicts on the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board in its meeting held on May 11, 2020. The Sentence Review Board (SRB) in its meeting held on May 11, had recommended the release of Sharma and 18 others. Sandeep Goel who is DG (Prisons) said that, Sharma walked out of jail on Monday. He spent 17 years behind bars. His actual period with remission is 23 years and four months.

It would be vital to mention here that Manu Sharma who is son of former Union Minister Vinod Sharma was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court in December 2006 for shooting and killing model Jessica Lal after she refused to serve him liquor at the Tamarind Court restaurant owned by socialite Bina Ramani which was an unlicensed bar at Qutub Colonade in South Delhi's Mehrauli area on the night of April 30, 1999 at a private party. The trial court had initially acquitted him but the Delhi High Court which undertook the case amid nationwide outrage and protests, reversed the trial court decision and sentenced him to a life term. The Supreme Court also in 2010 upheld the life sentence.

It cannot be denied that the women rights activists have called 'unfortunate' the decision to prematurely release Manu Sharma saying that it sets a wrong precedent. But it also cannot be overlooked that in 2018, Jessica Lal's sister Sabrina Lal had written to Tihar jail authorities saying that she has no objections to Sharma's release. Sabrina Lal also said that, The past is behind me. Our fight was always for justice. I just hope that he is a reformed man and learned his lesson. This certainly played a key role in ensuring his release.

It also cannot be denied that Sunil Gupta who was the prison's legal officer for 35 years and who knew Sharma inside prison said that, He helped the jail factory in branding its products and made it famous. It was his idea to open outlets or sell the products on the web. His non-profit also focused on prisoners' children. Had Sharma not been a high-profile prisoner he may have been released just after completing 14 years in prison. Also, one must remember that a prison is a reformation centre. It is not a place to lock anyone forever.

It must also be pointed out here that Manu Sharma's lawyer – Amit Sahni said that his client was already out on emergency parole since the first week of April, as part of measures to decongest jails amid the pandemic. He further said that the L-G had accepted the SRB's recommendations as per which Manu Sharma is entitled for permanent release from jail. Sharma has undergone imprisonment of 16 years, 11 months and 24 days in actual and 23 years, 4 months and 22 days with remission. He had also availed parole 12 times and furlough 24 times.

It must also be disclosed here that Manu Sharma's case had come up for review multiple times since 2017, only to be rejected. The Sentence Review Board (SRB) is chaired by the Delhi Home Minister. Director General (Prisons), Principal Secretary (Home), Principal Secretary (Law), Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), the government's chief probation officer and a district judge are also part of the Committee. This time too the plea of Manu Sharma was decided solely on merit. His good conduct in jail also played a big role in securing his early release.

As per sources, the Board also took into consideration the Delhi Police's response which has not opposed the premature release of the convict in the meeting. The chief probation officer, social welfare department also recommended the same. All this led to his early release.

It would be instructive to note that an application for remission is considered only when a life term convict has spent 14 years in jail. The Board takes into account several factors such as conduct of the prisoner in jail, whether crime was premeditated or a spurt of the moment act, nature and gravity of crime, propensity for committing crime, prospects of post release rehabilitation, etc. Very rightly so!

Since 2018, Manu was lodged in the open jail of the prison. Open jail prisoners are allowed to step out but have to spend the night inside the complex. The media first reported this development on April 22, 2018, and that it was possibly the penultimate step towards his release. In November 2019, Manu's advocate approached the Delhi High Court seeking his release. The Delhi High Court then asked the Board to consider Sharma's case for release in its next meeting on May 11.

It must also be brought out here that initially when the Delhi High Court took up the case, Manu Sharma was represented by none other than the legendary Ram Jethmalani (now deceased) and later in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had held that:
presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending.

So finally we see that Manu Sharma too is now a free man. His case is a message to all that a fit of anger can destroy our so many years in jail. So it is always advisable to rein in one's anger as it can save us from getting into deep trouble!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top