KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW

Autumn Internal Assessment 2023- 3rd Component
[ Short Assignment on Case review and Analysis]
Name of Case: Tandoor Murder Case
[Sushil Sharma Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi)]
(2014) 4 SCC 317
Subject name: Legal Methods

Submitted to: Ms. Jinia Kundu, Assistant Professor- II,

(Programme Officer- NSS Unit & KIIT NSS Bureau)
School of Law, KIIT Deemed to be University,
Bhubaneshwar- 751024, Odisha, India

Submitted by: Sharanya Mukherjee, 2383102

1st Semester, BA-LLB (H) B

1|Page
 CONTENT PAGE NUMBER

Case Details 3

Table of Statutes 4

Cases Listed 4

Introduction 5

Facts of the Case 5-7

Sections Involved 7

Issues 8

Contentions 8-9

Judgment 9-10

Ratio Decidendi 10

Analysis 11-12

Conclusion 12

2|Page
CASE DETAILS
Supreme Court of India
Name of the case: Tandoor Murder Case [ Sushil Sharma Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi)]
Citation: (2014) 4 SCC 317
Appellant: Sushil Sharma
Respondent: State (NCT of Delhi)
Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2007, decided on October 8, 2013
Bench: P. Sathasivam, C.J., Ranjana P. Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.

High Court of Delhi

Name of the case: State Vs. Sushil Sharma (cross- appeal)
Citation: 2007 (94) DRJ 777
Petitioner: State (NCT of Delhi)
Respondent: Sushil Sharma
Death Sentence Reference No. 3/2003 with Crl. A. 827/2003, decided on February 19, 2007
Bench: R.S. Sodhi, J; P.K. Bhasin, J

3|Page
TABLE OF STATUTES

Name of Statute Year

Indian Penal Code 1860

Criminal Procedure Code 1973

Indian Evidence Act 1872

CASES LISTED

i. Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

Citation: (1980) 2SCC 684

ii. Macchi Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

Citation: (1983) 3SCC 470

iii. Swamy Shraddananda Vs. State of Karnataka

4|Page
INTRODUCTION

India has recorded numerous number of sensational criminal cases over the years.
From the Tarakeswar affair to the Murder of Ghosts to the famous Rang and Billa case, India
has had an experience of various gruesome criminal cases. In some cases, the judgement has
been more sensational and controversial than the case itself.
Tandoor murder case is one such case which shook India and unfolded in front of everyone a
crime so ghastly that chills run down people’s spine every time they think about it.
It is very difficult to understand human psychology, something which psychologists have
reminded as time and again. What is also very difficult to understand is to what was going on
in the mind of Sushil Sharma when he ordered to burn his wife’s body in his own restaurant
after killing her. Something which is more difficult than this is to understand that everything
that Sushil Sharma did the night he killed his wife, Naina Sahni was done under a fit of rage
because he suspected her for having an extra marital affair. And the most difficult part for the
citizens of the country was to digest the judgement rendered by Supreme Court on this matter.
The appellant contested that the evidence for most of the case was circumstantial in nature
and thus motive played an important role here which according to the advocates of Sushil
Sharma, prosecution has failed to prove. The judgement took quite a long time to come.
Sushil Sharma was awarded the death penalty by the trial court which was then upheld by the
High Court of Delhi. Later on, when the case was filed in the Supreme Court on special leave
appeal, the Court changed the judgement of the Trial and High Court and granted him life
imprisonment rather than death penalty.
The judgement of the Supreme Court ignited a spark of controversy amongst the public at
large.
Here, we shall discuss the facts of the case, the issues involved, the contentions of both the
parties, judgement rendered by the Supreme Court and analyse it.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case as observed by the trial court are as follows:
➢ Accused Sushil Sharma was the former President of the Delhi Youth Congress and
was married to Naina Sahni (referred to as the deceased hereinafter) who was the
former General Secretary of Delhi Youth Congress Girl’s Wing.
➢ They got married in their own way in their apartment in Mandir Marg and continued
to stay there.
➢ Sushi Sharma also owned a restaurant named Bagia Bar-be-que
➢ On the night of 2/3rd July, 1995, Constable Abdul Nazir Kunju (PW3) heard a cry of a
woman screaming that the hotel is on fire while patrolling near Bagia Bar-be-que

5|Page
 ➢ On close inspection, he saw that smoke was spiralling and flame was coming out of
the Bagia Bar-be-que restaurant
➢ PW3 along with Home Guard Constable went inside the restaurant to inspect the
cause of fire and found accused Keshav near the tandoor increasing the fire
➢ Upon questioning Keshav answered that he was a fellow congress worker and was
burning old posters and banners
➢ While the other officers and constables came in, they saw Sushil Sharma standing at
the gate as identified by the security personnel
➢ The tandoor was emitting a foul and malodorous smell and the constables on close
inspection found a charred body of a female inside the tandoor
➢ Sushil Sharma fled the site and spent the night at Malcha Marg near Gujarat Bhawan
➢ Shortly after this, their apartment in Mandir Marg was raided by the police where they
found blood-stained cloth piece of the mattress, blood-stained carpet, hair of a woman
with blood on it, one lead of bullet, empty cartridges and a plywood with a bullet
mark.
➢ On 5th July, 1995, the dead body was identified by Matloob Karim (PW 12), a close
acquaintance of Naina Sahni
➢ The forensic report revealed that the cause for the death of the deceased was
haemorrhagic shock and the burn marks were inflicted post the death
➢ A Sessions Court at Madras granted him anticipatory bail which was cancelled by
Madras High Court at the instance of Delhi Police
➢ Later on, he was arrested in Bangalore
➢ Live cartridges were found in the possession of Sushil Sharma in Bangalore
➢ The post-mortem revealed the presence of lead bullets from the body of the deceased
and the board of doctors held the cause of the death to be coma consequent to fire arm
injury
➢ Later, the Ballistic expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased and
the ones found from their apartment in Mandir Marg belonged to the revolver found
in possession of Sushil Sharma in Bangalore. It was also confirmed that the revolver
was working and has been fired through.
➢ There was presence of tried blood which was present in the car used by Sushil Sharma
to flee the scene at Bagia Bar-be-que and it matched with the blood group of the
deceased
➢ The DNA report submitted confirmed that the charred body found in the Bagia Bar-
be-que restaurant was that of the deceased Naina Sahni, biological offspring of Mrs.
Jaswant Kaur (CW 1) and Sardar Harbhajan Singh (CW 2 )
➢ The investigating officer (PW 81) came to this conclusion that the deceased was killed
by her husband Sushil Sharma since he suspected his wife of having an affair and also
because she wanted him to make their marriage public which he did not want to.
The trial court found Sushil Sharma guilty under 302 and 201 of IPC and the learned
Additional Sessions judged awarded him the death penalty. According to Section 366 of
CRPC, if a death sentence is passed by the Sessions Court, it shall not be passed until it is
confirmed by the High Court. Since there was no direct witness regarding the death of Naina
Sahni, the High Court based heavily on the circumstantial evidence available, reiterated the
facts and passed its judgement. The hon’ble High Court also relied on the statements made by
PW-12, Matloob Karim, who knew Naina Sahni since college and was very thoroughly

6|Page
scrutinized. The duo was stated to be in love before the deceased married Sushil Sharma but
were unable due to difference in religion. In front of the High Court, the advocate for Sushil
Sharma tried to persuade the Hon’ble judges into thinking that PW 12 wanted to defame
Sushil Sharma but the Court refused to believe that. After cross-checking all the witnesses,
post-mortem reports and the facts, the High Court also held Sushil Sharma guilty.
The Court observed that Sushil Sharma wanted to misuse his power as the President of the
Youth Wing of the Congress to escape his charges but was unable to do so. He was not helped
by any of his near and dear ones at any stage of the long trial to get bail. The Hon’ble court
was of the view that this case fell within the purview of the ‘rarest of the rare cases’, a
person who could commit a crime so heinous as this one had no scope of change and “not
awarding the death penalty would be a mockery of justice”.
The High Court thus upheld the decision of the Sessions Judge and awarded Sushil Sharma
death penalty.
Sushil Sharma then went on to appeal his case in the Supreme Court of India.

SECTIONS INVOLVED

Indian Penal Code, 1860

➢ Section 302
➢ Section 201
➢ Section 120
➢ Section 120B

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

➢ Section 313
➢ Section 165
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
➢ Section 10
➢ Section 30
➢ Section 155
➢ Section 5
➢ Section 27
➢ Section 45

7|Page
ISSUES OF THE CASE

i. Was all the evidence available cross-checked properly before coming to the decision
to avoid any loopholes since the case was mostly based on circumstantial evidence?

ii. Was the Supreme Court right in overruling the judgement of the High Court and
awarding life imprisonment instead of death penalty?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Contentions of the Appellant:

➢ The advocates for Sushil Sharma contended that Matloob Karim (PW 12) is an
unreliable witness since he was very close with the deceased and inimically disposed
towards the appellant.
➢ There was no evidence on record to show that the appellant was always quarrelling
with the deceased.
➢ Even though the appellant knew his deceased wife’s close bonding with PW 12, he
did not turn her out of the house but just restricted her movements.
➢ The argument that the appellant Sushil Sharma suspected of his wife’s fidelity and
thus killed her is not backed by any evidence and therefore, according to the
advocates on behalf of the appellant, prosecution has failed to prove motive.
➢ They further contended that the empty cartridges, lead bullet and the ply containing
bullet hole which were recovered from the house of the appellant proved that the
bullet was fired for 10 times (5 empty cartridges were found in a bowl, two present on
the ground, one causing a hole in the plywood and the rest two found in the skull of
the deceased). Surprisingly, the next-door neighbours did not hear anything and this
casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution
➢ They pointed out that there was no evidence on record which stated that the body and
the skull which were subjected to post-mortem by the Board of doctors belonged to
the deceased. The person who happens to identify the deceased in this case also has
mentioned anything officially about him identifying the victim for the post-mortem.
➢ Further, it was not stated officially anywhere that the doctors present in the board for
the post-mortem were experts in conducting so. Therefore, the prosecution must
throw light and prove if they have tampered the evidence or not.
➢ The two bullets which were extracted from the skull of the deceased during post-
mortem were not identified by anyone
➢ It was also seen that on the fatal night, the appellant was last seen by the some of the
witnesses at around 9:45 pm in front of Ashok Yatri Niwas (in front of his restaurant
Bagia Bar-be-que) and thus his presence after the constables came post 11 is not
relevant.

8|Page
 ➢ They lastly contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.

Contentions of the Respondent:

➢ The respondent contended that there was enough reliable evidence to prove that the
skull belonged to the deceased and it was preserved with utmost care and was not
tampered with
➢ In against of the contention of the appellant that the two bullets found in the skull of
the deceased was not identified by anyone, the respondents stated that the report of
CSFL clearly states that the bullets discovered in the skull were fired from the
revolver which was in possession of Sushil Sharma. They further ask the appellant to
prove the motive behind anyone falsely involving Sushil Sharma in this case
➢ They further argued that the appellant had not established the plea of alibi.
➢ With the help of statements given by reliable witnesses, it was established that the
appellant Sushil Sharma was seen in front of the Bagia Bar-be-que restaurant at
around 10:00-11:00 pm on the day of the incident with his car.
➢ From the statements given by Matloob Karim (PW 12) and R.N. Dubey (PW 82-
servant of appellant) it was inferred that Sushil Sharma had a very strained
relationship with his deceased wife, Naina Sahni
➢ The appellant on the night of the gruesome event, fled the scene and stayed elsewhere
from where he travelled to other cities until he was finally arrested in Bangalore. This
abscondence of the appellant proved to be crucial in this case. Conduct is relevant
under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act (Swamy Shraddananda Vs. State of
Karnataka)

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after thoroughly analysing the evidence, decisions of
the previous courts and arguments propounded by both the parties, gave its valuable
judgment. The court wanted the chain of evidence to complete its circle since the nature of
evidence in this case was circumstantial.
Firstly, it mentioned that the DNA report confirmed that the body which was found in the
restaurant was that of the deceased. The Court stated that the prosecution was successful in
proving that the deceased lived with the appellant, was last seen with him and also that the
Bagia Bar-be-que restaurant belonged to the appellant which plays a very crucial role in this
case. The Court accepted the credibility of PW 12- Matloob Karim and believed that he
would have no gain if he gave false statements. By the chain of evidence established by the
prosecution and relying on the witnesses who stood firm in the cross examination, the court
believed that the appellant suspected of his wife’s fidelity, even restricted her movements and
asked PW 82- Ram Niwas Dubey to keep a close watch on her proving his motive to do away
with the deceased. The Court was not happy about the argument put forward by the appellant

9|Page
that at least 10 rounds were fired that night yet no neighbour heard that and made an
objection. The Court was of the believe that the neighbours probably did not say anything for
they did not want to get involved in court drama, something which the counsels for the
appellant have overlooked. The Court further rejected the arguments contended by the
appellant creating a doubt regarding the report sent by the Board of Doctors and questioning
if the skull actually belonged to the deceased or not since the Board had no reason to falsely
implicate the appellant.
The Hon’ble court held that the appellant has not been able to prove the defence of alibi and
the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It believed that the chain of
evidence has come a full circle and was giving rise to a conclusion which hinted at the guilt
of the appellant.
The Supreme Court overruled the sentence given by the Trial Court and the High Court. The
Supreme Court gave a judgment of life imprisonment for the appellant Sushil Sharma. It
relied on the theories of reformation and rehabilitation rather than theories of proportionality
and deterrence. It was stated that the murder was an outcome of a strained personal
relationship and it is not a crime against the society. The court held that even though the
offence was brutal, brutality alone would not justify death sentence.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court took into consideration the aggravating and mitigating factors and struck
the right balance between the two while pronouncing the judgment. The Hon’ble Court stated
keeping in mind the famous case that marked the rarest of rare doctrine, Bachan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab that judges should never be bloodthirsty. A sentence as huge as death penalty
should be decided on the basis of the different authorities and guiding principles.
The court took into its consideration several cases and stated that how brutally someone was
killed or the number of people killed or the way the bodies were disposed after getting killed
has not always influenced the Hon’ble court to impose death sentence. A lot goes into the
thinking before the court imposes death penalty. In many cases where the accused was
awarded the death sentence, the court has taken into consideration several factors including
age, social background, poverty, past criminal records, amount of time spent in prison, etc to
change the death penalty to life imprisonment. In applicable cases where the accused was
beyond reform and pardoning their life would cause a huge problem in the society, the Court
has awarded the death penalty. But, in some cases, the court has granted life imprisonment
over death sentence. The nature of every case is different and believing in the irreversible
nature of the sentence, the Hon’ble court has always thought through its decisions.
The accused Sushil Sharma, did not have any past criminal history, no evidence was
established by the prosecution proving that he might be a threat to the society or is likely to
repeat such a crime again. Thus, in no way could the court have overruled the possibility of
him reforming himself.
All these factors led to the Supreme Court awarding the appellant life imprisonment instead
of death sentence.

10 | P a g e
CASE ANALYSIS:

Tandoor murder case was one of the most horrifying and gruesome crimes committed in the
history of India. The cold-blooded murder of Naina Sahni by her husband petrified the
citizens of the country.
The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not happily accepted by everyone in
the society and the judgment called for different opinions by the mass public. The opinions of
the people were divided into two parts. Some people thought from a moral perspective and
were unhappy with the. According to the opinion of these people, if someone was able to
murder his wife and later on burn her body in a tandoor is definitely a threat to the society
and does not deserve to have his life pardoned. The next group of people agreed with the
judgment of the Supreme Court and the rationale behind propounding this judgment.
I, agree with the judgment given by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has not only thought from a factual ground but also from a moral ground.
The moral grounds were based on both the parties of the case. It did not spare the criminal
totally but imposed life imprisonment which it thought would do justice. Everyday, for the
next of the life left, Sushil Sharma would wake up in his cell and would remember why he
was there, the court did not spare him for committing such a heinous crime. On the other
hand, the Hon’ble court spared the life of the criminal by not awarding him the death
sentence and keeping the scope and possibility of change open. The prosecution in their
entire case could in no way establish that appellant Sushil Sharma if left free would become a
threat to the society and would again cause a murder in the same way. It was held by the court
that the murder was a consequence of an extremely strained personal relationship. This thus
proves that the appellant has no intention of causing any harm to the society and must
therefore be given a chance to reform himself.
In the famous Bachan Singh case, the Hon’ble bench held that there are numerous other
circumstances which justify the passing of a lighter sentence. In Tandoor murder case, there
were a lot of situations like the appellant not being a threat to the society which stood the
basis for the Supreme Court for not awarding the death sentence. In Bachan Singh, it was
stated that a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to
taking a life through law’s instrumentality… should be saved for the rarest of rare cases when
the alternative option is absolutely not available. Every human life is important, every human
life should be treated with utmost respect. We should not unnecessarily use law as a tool for
taking a life. Death penalty should be considered as the rarest of rare exception and we must
remember that exceptions can never be the rule.
Further in Macchi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, it was observed by the court that before
rendering the death sentence, the court must ask itself these questions:
i. Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of
imprisonment of life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?

11 | P a g e
 ii. Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose
death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
Clearly, in this case the mitigating circumstances in favour of the offender, Sushil Sharma
prove that life imprisonment can very well be an adequate alternative instead of death
penalty.
A list of mitigating factors was mentioned in the Bacchan Singh case, out of which the
following were fulfilled by Sushil Sharma:
(1) Offense was committed under influence of extreme mental and emotional disturbance
(2) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would
constitute a continuing threat to society
(3) Probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated
The court before awarding its sentence has take into its consideration all these mitigating
factors and also the fact that the accused had no criminal history.

CONCLUSION

Sushil Sharma in a fit of rage suspecting his wife’s fidelity killed her. We cannot in a fit of
rage want for his death penalty. The Supreme Court, being aware that once its judgment is
given, it cannot be unturned, made sure to complete the chain of evidence as the case was
based on circumstantial evidence. Upon thorough cross-examination of witnesses, hearing the
contentions of both the sides and keeping in mind previous judgments, the court came to the
decision that the accused should be awarded life imprisonment instead of the death sentence.
This gave the accused an opportunity to reform as well as did not spare him for the
horrendous crime committed.
I feel that the Supreme Court was right in not awarding the death sentence in this case. We
should not justify taking away someone’s life with the help of law unless and until there’s no
spec of ray or hope for an alternative.
Law in a country is present to help its citizens. It is supposed to act in a free and fair manner
for all. It would be unfair to order someone’s death when there’s hope for change. The life
imprisonment meted out to Sushil Sharma was enough to deter such crimes and would also
give him an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate.

12 | P a g e