The Hindu : New Delhi News : Fresh evidence for Jessica case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, May 27, 2006

New Delhi

New Delhi

Fresh evidence for Jessica case

Since confessional statements are not admissible in the courts, the police should dig for clinching proofs, says Devesh K. Pandey

While there has been a lot of hue and cry over the confessional statements of the accused in the much talked about Jessica Lal murder case alleging that the police did not take them into consideration during investigations, the emphasis now, according to legal experts, should be on gathering fresh material and circumstantial evidence to secure reversal of the trial court's order acquitting all nine accused.

According to legal experts, confessional statements are not admissible in courts of law just because the police record them. As there is a longstanding impression that the police extract confessional statements from the accused by force, the courts do not consider such documents, including those recorded (unsigned) under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), as evidence. However, Section 27 of the Evidence Act has a provision for consideration of portions of the statement that are backed by recovery of any material evidence.

In a criminal case, the most important aspect is the material evidence that helps the prosecution establish the guilt of an accused. And next only to it is circumstantial evidence and also the conduct of the accused throughout the episode on the basis of which the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

In the Jessica Lal murder case, the police were unable to recover the weapon of offence. There are allegations that it happened despite the fact that prime accused Manu Sharma had, in his statement to the police, provided leads to the investigating team about the whereabouts of the firearm. A recorded telephonic conversation purportedly between another accused, Ravinder Kishan Sudan, who helped dispose of the weapon, and one Ashok Dutt, had also provided some clues in this regard.

However, it is also true that the prime accused, who came from a family having strong links with the high and mighty, had surrendered days after Jessica was shot. It would perhaps be unwise to believe that he did not take legal advice or that he did not make sure that evidence linking him with the crime was destroyed before he took such a step. "A person who commits such a crime would first try to flee from the place of occurrence and then his priority would be to destroy the weapon of offence. The weapon can be destroyed within minutes also," said a lawyer.

In the present scenario, no one knows the fate of the weapon, which incidentally was licensed. In case it was not destroyed soon after Jessica's murder, the police according to legal experts should renew efforts to trace it. They should also track down Sudan, the man suspected to be behind the disappearance of the weapon, as he can help establish the important links in the chain of events.

To be sure, certain police officers directly involved with the probe committed blunders leading to the acquittal of the accused, for which action must be taken against them. In this light, the police have rightly registered a separate case to identify those who "deliberately" destroyed evidence.

Nevertheless, legal experts assert, the focus of the entire exercise should now be to ensure that the victim's family gets justice. It can be achieved only when the police expose the loopholes in the acquittal judgment and establish that omissions and commissions in the case had been done at the behest of the accused.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail