No One Killed Jessica, is all set to be released on Januart 7th, 2011. The two main characters in the movie played by Vidya Balan and Rani Mukherji are already working on the promotion campaign of the film.
No One Killed Jessica is based on a true story. Rani Mukherji plays the role of a smart and cunning reporter while Vidya Balan plays the role of Jessica Lall's elder sister, Sabrina. The movie is based on the controversial murder case of model Jessica Lall in New Delhi in 1999. However, the director has clarified, that he took the name of the film from a headline that came in Times of India in 2006 about this case when the murderer of Jessica Lall was allowed to walk freely instead of a fair trial. This made the masses furious and led to nationwide protests so that the court reopens the case and give justice.
Jessica Lall was an Indian model in New Delhi who was born in 1965. She was working as a celebrity bartender at a socialite party where she was shot dead on April 29th, 1999 by Siddharth Vashisht a.k.a. Manu Sharma. Manu was the son of a wealthy and influential politician, Venod Sharma. Due to his influential background, it was very difficult to prove the charges against him. Most of the witnesses refused to co-operate. The case was a difficult one since the evidence was hampered and even the murder weapon was hidden.
Above you can see the picture of Bina Ramani, who was the owner of Tamarind Court restaurant, a refurbished haveli overlooking Qutb Minar where the murder took place. She used to arrange Thursday Special Nights, where models and celebrities used to serve as bartenders to the guests. Though, Tamarind Court didn't legally have a liquor license but liquor was served there. This was exactly how Jessica Lall happened to be there. She was one of the models acting as the bartender on that night along with a few other celebrities such as Bina Ramani's own daughter - Malini Ramani and Jessica's model friend Shayan Manshu.
That was a busy and crowded Thursday night party and so drinks were finished by 2 am. Manu Sharma and his friends at 11:15pm. Manu asked Jessica for a drink but she refused to give, perhaps because there were no more drinks. There are many versions of what happened. But Manu Sharma got angry for not getting a drink and he shot her in the presence of hundreds of witnesses at point blank range twice. One bullet was missed but the other killed her. She died that night.
Malini Ramani had told the court the following statement: "I won't give you a sip even if you give me a thousand bucks!" – (overheard by Malini Ramani)
Manu Sharma and his friends ran away from the spot after the incident. Manu hid the murder weapon. It was said, that later on one of his friends took the murder weapon one of his friends who was visiting India from USA for a wedding. That friend called Titu was never discovered. He left for USA after hiding the gun.
The Ramanis were arrested very soon after the murder, but none of them were Indian nationals and so not much harm was done to them.
Manu Sharma gave a statement to the Police, which was taped, in which he admitted shooting Jessica Lall. "The idea at that time was to shoot in challenge. It was embarrassing to hear that even if I paid a thousand bucks I would not get a sip of drink." This audiotape was obtained and aired by the TV channel NDTV, but it does not constitute legal testimony. Subsequently, however, the confession was retracted, and a not guilty plea was entered in the trial.
It was said, that justice could hardly be given because there were many laws that did not help in solving the case. There were many aspects of the case that could not be used in the right manner because of rigid and unnecessary articles in their own system.
After the verdict many experts pointed fingers at the flaws in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, especially Sections 25-29: 25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Though, the clauses were initially added for the protection of the defendants from giving confession under police torture, it was later exploited by many a guilty defendants as well, as in this case, where many a witnesses withdrew their testimony, after first giving it to the police during interrogation.
However, media and common people didn't accept the fate of the case and they protested.There was an outrage and people wanted justice for Jessica Lall.
Above you can see the aspiring model and an acquaintance of Jessica's, Shayan Munshi, who was serving behind the bar with Jessica when the shooting occurred. In his initial statement he said unequivocally that Manu Sharma had fired the gun twice, once into the air, and once at Jessica. This testimony was recorded by the police in their First Information Report (FIR), which Shayan signed. However, during the trial he claimed that he did not know Hindi and that he was not aware of what he had signed.
At the trial, Shayan said that Manu Sharma had fired only once, and that also into the air. He described Manu's clothes carefully. Subsequently, he said that another bullet, fired by someone else, was the one to hit Jessica. About this man's dress, he was evasive, and saying only that he was wearing a "light-coloured" shirt. This led to the "two-gun theory" - where the forensic report said that the bullets were fired from different weapons.
The good part was that unlike our very own country, after a good 10 years, justice was delivered. Although Manu Sharma was influential, he was finally punished for his crime. He is now serving life imprisonment for the crime he committed in 1999 by murdering model Jessica Lall.
Manu Sharma is one of several high-profile criminals brought to trial in India through media activism. Along with that of some other murderers, his conviction is viewed as demonstrating the impact of the general public in correcting imbalances in the Indian legal process.
