Shayan Munshi

New Delhi, Dec. 20: Shayan Munshi’s troubles just don’t seem to end.

Two days after calling the model-turned-actor a liar “won over” by Manu Sharma to change his statement in the Jessica Lal murder case, Delhi High Court today issued notices to him and 28 others who had turned hostile.

The notices issued under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code — which concerns perjury — ask all hostile witnesses to appear before the court on February 1.

One of the notices has also been sent to Andaleeb Sehgal, who is being questioned by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Iraq oil-for-food scam. Sehgal was present at the site of the murder.

Shiv Dass Yadav, an electrician at Tamarind Court, where the murder took place, and Karan Rajput, an eyewitness who later turned hostile, have been summoned, too. The notices follow a sting operation that had suggested how Yadav and Rajput had deliberately lied, in exchange for monetary favours from Sharma’s family.

The focus will stay firmly on Shayan as his “about-turn” in court from the original police statement is believed to be a prime factor behind the acquittal of Sharma and eight others accused by the trial court earlier this year.

Shayan, now in Mumbai, said he was unfazed and would face “whatever the courts had in store”. “I have never been scared of facing up to situations,” he said over the phone.

The police believe Shayan changed his testimony out of fear. In his police statement on the night of the murder, he said he had seen Manu fire once in the air, and then at Jessica. Had he stuck to the statement, police officials say, the case could have been solved years ago.

“We believe he changed his statement under pressure from the family of the accused. It was not money so much but fear,” said a member of the special investigating team that took up the case since the acquittals earlier this year.

In his court testimony, Shayan said two shots were fired that night, but from different guns.

Statements purportedly made before the police are of little use unless the witness sticks to them in court. Usually, perjury action is initiated by a sessions or trial court, and not by the high court as has happened today.

The high court took strong exception that the trial court failed to take action against the witnesses who turned hostile to “thwart the course of justice”.

“The trial court has chosen not to invoke this (Section 340 of the CrPC) law despite taking note of the fact that a large number of witnesses had turned hostile. Witnesses turning hostile appears to be the order of the day. The courts must put an end to this kind of attitude of witnesses turning hostile in order to thwart the course of justice,” the bench said.