Not death, please: Manu's appeal

New Delhi: Manu Sharma, found guilty of murdering model Jessica Lall seven years ago, on Wednesday appealed before the Delhi High Court that he must not be given the death sentence, as the crime was did not fall in the category of rarest of rare crimes.

Sharma's lawyer R K Nasseem appealed before a Bench comprising Justice R S Sodhi and Justice P K Bhasin that the murder was not pre-planned and his client was a first time offender.

Citing court judgments, Nasseem said the case did not fall in the rarest-of-rare category. "There is no such proof that the convict is habitual killer and that he is not incorrigible," he said during the arguments on quantum of sentence.

However, the Bench did not agree with the prosecution argument that the offence falls on the category of rarest of rare warranting death sentence.

"There is nothing on record that the offence falls under the rarest of rare category. The murder though intentional was committed without any prior motive," the Bench said.

"We have heard the counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that though the case has shaken the conscience of the society yet it cannot be held that the convict (Manu) deserved maximum punishment," the Bench said.

Sharma, son of a Congress leader in Haryana, was convicted on Monday for murdering Jessica at a south Delhi restaurant owned by socialite Bina Ramani on April 29-30, 1999.

The two other co-accused Vikas Yadav, son of former Rajya Sabha MP D P Yadav, and Amardeep Singh Gill alias Tony were convicted for conspiring to destroy the evidence.

All the three accused are currently in the High Court hear their sentences.

Naseem said "all endeavour should be made to bring a convict back to the society".

Gill's lawyer R D Rana sought a lenient punishment on the ground that his client didn’t know that removing the car in which Sharma fled from the murder scene was a crime.

On this, the Bench said: "Ignorance of law cannot be a ground to give leniency".

Rana said Gill came from a good and reputed family and was of good character. However, the submission for leniency on the ground that he was employed with a multi-national firm did not impress the Bench which observed that "this may be a ground which may go against you (Tony)".