Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara

201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

Tandoor Murder Case

(The State vs. Sushil Sharma)

Introduction
Forensic Science is the application of science to those criminal and civil laws
that are enforced by police agencies in a criminal justice system.
What happens when you find your beloved partner engaged in a deep telephonic
conversation with a person of opposite sex? You choose to shoot your partner in
a fit of rage, chop the body into pieces, and to destroy the evidence you go ahead
and burn the entire corpse in a “Tandoor”. This is what happened exactly in the
case of Sushil Sharma and Naina Sahni1.
Now popularised as the “Tandoor case”, the murder of Naina Sahni remains one
of the most sensational cases for the criminal and justice system. The accused,
Sushil Sharma, was first awarded a death sentence by both the trial court and the
Delhi High Court, which managed to stretch such a case of such viciousness
close to a decade; and later the Supreme Court overruled the judgment
commuting it to a life sentence in 20132.

Facts
Background
Sushil Sharma was the President of Delhi Youth Congress (1992), a commerce
graduate from Delhi University, while Naina Sahni (the deceased) also a Delhi
University Graduate, was the former General Secretary of the Delhi Youth
Congress Girls Wing.
In the year 1992, accused Sushil Sharma obtained a flat at Mandir Marg where
Naina Sahni used to visit frequently and at times “she used to stay back at night
as well”, as said by the neighbours. Later, Sushil and Naina are said to have
entered into marriage in that residence “in their own way”, which suggests that
they had a secret marriage3 hidden from the public. However, the marriage had
the consent Naina Sahni’s parents. Thereafter, Naina, now claiming herself as
Sushil’s wife, continued to live in the said flat, till she was murdered.

1
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

Meanwhile, the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) which was

running a unit called Ashok Yatri Nivas entered into a license agreement with
Sushil Sharma and others for a restaurant called as the Bagia Bar-be-Que
Restaurant.
In the meantime, while Naina Sahni claimed herself as the wife, Sushil wanted to
keep their marriage a secret in order to not jeopardize his political career. This
was however not accepted by Naina Sahni. As the marital bliss started to fade
with time, Sushil started to suspected the character of his wife and restricted her
freedom. It was also known from neighbours that Sharma hit his wife regularly
and spied on her via their servant. The marriage now already strained, soon hit
rock-bottom when the wife started trying to leave her husband and immigrate to
Australia with the help of her friend Matloob Karim, her colleague and a fellow
Congress worker.

Day of Incident
On 2nd July 1995, after 3 years of their “secret and exhausting” marriage, Sushil
Sharma reached his Mandir Marg flat to find Naina in a deep discussion with
somebone on the phone. On seeing Sharma, panicked Sahni disconnected the
call. Sharma, now suspicious, re dialled the number and found that it was
Matloob Karim. Sushil Sharma suspected his wife having an affair with Mr.
Karim.
Enraged, Sharma took out his licensed revolver and shot Naina thrice, two bullets
hitting her head and neck, while the third struck the air conditioner. Sahni,
unfortunately, died on the spot.
Sharma covered her body in a black plastic and carried the corpse to the
restaurant in the dickey of his Maruti car. The restaurant in question, Bagia Bar-
be-Que (owned by Sharma) was the place where he chopped the corpse into
pieces and dumped it in the Tandoor with the help of Keshav Kumar, restaurant
employee and the co-accused in the case. Later it was reported that Kumar, upon
being interrogated by the police, claimed that, he “… was burning old Congress
banners.”4
The body upon combustion released a huge amount of fire and smoke in the
restaurant which attracted the attention of the passersby and also the people in the
2
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

restaurant. When the police tried to figure out the cause of the fire in the
restaurant, Sushil Sharma fled from the crime scene. Upon investigating the
source of the fire, the police discovered a human body among the embers,
particularly of a woman whose limbs were tore apart and her intestines spilling
out. The police also spotted a black polythene covered in bloodstains near the
Tandoor. Later, blood stains were also found on Keshav’s clothes which led to
his arrest. It was revealed that he helped Sharma get rid of the corpse and flee
from the crime scene which ultimately established him as the co-accused.
Meanwhile Sushil Sharma fled to various cities thereafter (Jaipur, Mumbai,
Chennai, Bangalore) finally surrendering in Bangalore on 10th July 1995.

Established facts without a scope of doubt

1. The appellant Sushil Sharma was the owner of a restaurant by the name
of Bagia Bar-be-Que in the compound of Ashok Yatri Niwas at Ashoka
Road, New Delhi and his co-accused Keshav Kumar was one of the
employees kept there by Mr. Sharma.
2. On the night of 2nd July, 1995 a body of a female was being burnt on the
tandoor of the said Bagia Bar-be-Que by the appellant and the co-accused.
3. The post-mortem examination revealed bullets embedded in the skull and
neck region of the charred female corpse. The ballistic expert revealed that
the bullets have been fired from the .32” Arminus revolver which the
appellant admittedly possessed during those days.
4. The victim (charred female body) had met with homicidal death.
5. Appellant Sushil Sharma was living in flat, Mandir Marg, New Delhi with
Naina Sahni d/o Shri Harbhajann Singh and Smt. Jaswant Kaur and both of
them were seen together in the said flat in the evening of 2nd July, 1995
and after that day Naina Sahni was not seen alive by anyone.
6. Sushil Sharma had a strong motive to kill Naina Sahni as he was suspecting
that she was having affairs with other person and was refusing to publicly
declare Naina Sahni as his wife.
7. On 4th July, 1995, following were recovered from the flat located at
Mandir Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi - five fired cartridge cases of .32”
and one lead bullet of .32” and some blood stained articles.

3
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

8. The ballistic expert found that those cartridge cases and lead bullet have
been fired from the licensed Arminus .32” revolver of the accused and the
blood on different articles was found to be of B Group which was the
blood group of Naina Sahni.
9. After his arrest, the appellant recovered one blood stained kurta from the
area of Rangpuri in Delhi while in police custody.
10. The charred corpse lifted from the tandoor of Bagia Bar-be-Que on
the night of 2nd/3rd July, 1995 was found to be that of Naina Sahni5.

Evidences
Forensic science is that piece without which the puzzle of a criminal
investigation is incomplete.
In this case, following fields of forensic science have been used-

a. Inspection of crime scene

Following articles were taken into possession from different places.
Restaurant
1. Blood-stained clothes of Keshav Kumar- a white kurta and white pant.
2. One paijeh (anklet).
3. Other articles.
Car
1. Dried blood in the dicky.
2. Hair stuck on the back side of the front seat.
3. One wrist watch.
Flat
1. Blood-stained cloth piece of the mattress from a bed-room.
2. Blood-stained carpet.
3. Some hair of a woman with blood on them.
4. One lead of bullet

4
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

5. Five empty cases of fired cartridges.

6. Documents pertaining to Bagia Bar-he Que.
7. Plywood over the air-conditioner, since it had a bullet mark/hole.

b. Forensic Pathology and Medicolegal Death Investigation

The charred corpse was identified by by Matloob Karim to be that of Naina
Sahni and was subjected to post mortem examination.
First Post-Mortem
Conducted at - Lady Hardinge Medical College
It was erroneous as it suggested that the death was caused by burn injuries.
Second Post-Mortem
Ordered by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and conducted by Doctors from
three different hospitals, headed by T.D. Dogra.
1. Two bullets penetrated the body: one in the head and one in the neck.
2. Dead body subjected to X-ray examination.
3. X-ray reports showed the presence of one metallic piece in the skull and
one in the neck.
4. Metallic pieces extracted and identified as lead bullets.
Cause of death: coma due to firearm injury to the head.
Head injury deemed sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
* This case is a landmark citation for fruitful second autopsy6.

c. Ballistics
Investigation Evidence:
1. Bullets recovered from the deceased's body.
2. Fired cartridge cases and one lead bullet found in the flat at Mandir Marg.
3. Live cartridges and an Arminus revolver seized from Sushil Sharma in
Bangalore.
Examination:
5
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

1. All items sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

2. Test firing conducted with live cartridges from the accused's briefcase using
the Arminus revolver.
Ballistic Expert Findings:
1. The Arminus revolver was a functional firearm and had been fired.
2. The five cartridge cases and lead bullet from Mandir Marg and the two lead
bullets from the deceased's skull and neck were fired from the Arminus
revolver.
3. The hole on the plywood piece seized from the flat could have been caused
by the lead bullet recovered from the flat at Mandir Marg.

d. Forensic Biology/DNA
Blood-Stained Articles:
1. Seized from Bagia restaurant, flat at Mandir Marg, and dicky of accused's
car at Malcha Marg.
2. Sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.

Forensic Findings:
Human blood on all articles was B group, matching the blood group of the
deceased female identified as Naina Sahni.

DNA Testing:
Conducted by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.
Blood samples of Naina Sahni's parents and tissues (muscle from the thigh,
radius, ulna bones, and two ribs) of the deceased were sent.
DNA report confirmed the burnt body at Bagia Bar-be-Que tandoor was Naina
Sahni.

Investigation Conclusion:

6
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

Naina Sahni was killed by accused Sushil Sharma due to suspicion of her
relationships with Matloob Karim and others.
After killing her, Sushil Sharma, with co-accused Keshav Kumar, burnt her body
on the tandoor at Bagia Bar-be-Que.

Issues of the Law and Statutes

1. The crime was motivated by Sushil's suspicions about his wife's character.
The case was built on the basis of circumstantial evidence (DNA) and a
second autopsy, according to the legal problem discussed here.
2. According to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, when a criminal
conduct is committed by a group of people with a common purpose,
each of them is responsible for the crime as if it were committed by
themselves.
3. The penalty for criminal conspiracy is discussed under Section 120 B of
the IPC. Keshav Kumar's conduct of assisting Sushil to burn the body parts
in the Tandoor symbolizes his aid in the murder and subsequent aid in his
escape from the crime scene, making him responsible for punishment.
4. Keshav Kumar (the co-accused), who assisted Sushil in escaping from the
restaurant and also assisted him in burning the body, was charged under
Section 201 of the IPC because he destroyed evidence in order to
protect Sushil from legal action and also lied about the burning,
claiming that it was old Congress posters, thus providing false information
to the police.
5. With the assistance of Keshav Kumar, Sushil Sharma was able to quickly
flee the restaurant, in violation of Section 212, which states that anybody
who assists an offender in avoiding legal penalty would be punished as
specified in the section.
6. According to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, anybody who
commits murder is punishable by death or life imprisonment, as well
as a fine.

Judgment

7
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

In 2003, Sushil Sharma was sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge
in Delhi, based on forensic evidence presented by the prosecution. Co-accused
Keshav Kumar was convicted only under Section 201 of the IPC for burning
Naina Sahni's body. Sharma's conviction and death sentence led to an appeal by
Sharma and a referral to the Delhi High Court for confirmation of the death
sentence.

While dismissing the appeal of the convict Sushil Sharma, The Delhi High Court,
uphold the death penalty, awarded to him by the trial Court for the offence of
murder.
"People like the appellant who are power drunk and have no value for human
life are definitely a menace for the society at large and deserve no mercy. The
act of the appellant is so abhorrent and dastardly that in case death penalty is
not awarded to him it would be a mockery of justice and conscience of the
society at large would be shocked7. This is surely a case which falls within the
category of 'rarest of rare cases' in which no other punishment except the death
penalty would be justified."

An appeal was made to the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court's
judgment that confirmed the death sentence given to Sushil Sharma in the
Sessions Case.

Supreme court observed, "Undoubtedly the offence is brutal but the brutality
alone would not justify the death sentence in this case."
It was further observed that the circumstances of the crime were not such that
there was no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according
maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances in favour of the offender 8. It
was a crime committed by the accused due to strained personal relations, and not
one against society. Supreme court confirmed the conviction of the appellant for
offence of murder and abo commuted the death sentence awarded to Sushil
Sharma to life sentence.9

8
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

Analysis
Sushil Sharma was found guilty of murdering his wife in a fit of rage over
suspicions of an affair, but the case took over a decade to resolve. The long delay
can be attributed to his political influence, as he was the President of the Delhi
Youth Congress, which likely helped him manipulate the legal process and
prolong the case. Sushil Sharma, though he admitted to killing his wife, denied
the details of how he disposed of her body, claiming he doesn’t remember the
events clearly. The Supreme Court noted that there was no concrete medical
evidence or weapon to prove that Sharma chopped his wife's body into pieces
before burning it, despite media reports suggesting otherwise. The Court
emphasized that the murder resulted from a strained relationship rather than the
brutality of the act. Although Sharma’s actions were brutal, the Supreme Court
decided that brutality alone was not enough to justify the death penalty and
instead commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. This decision raises
questions about what level of cruelty will be considered 'rarest of the rare' to
warrant a death sentence in future cases.

Conclusion
In conclusion, forensic science was pivotal in securing the conviction of Sushil
Sharma for the murder of his wife. The post-mortem report provided critical
insights that shifted the direction of the investigation, while the findings from
ballistic experts established a direct connection between the cartridges and bullets
found at the crime scene and the Arminus revolver in Sharma’s possession.
Additionally, the DNA test results compared muscle tissue from the victim’s
charred bone with samples from her family, conclusively identifying her remains.
These forensic techniques—ranging from the analysis of ballistic evidence to the
use of DNA forensically—were fundamental in building a robust case against
Sharma. The meticulous application of these scientific methods not only
confirmed Sharma's guilt but also played a decisive role in leading to his
conviction. Thus, it is evident that without the effective use of forensic science,
the prosecution might not have achieved such a significant legal outcome.

References

9
 Forensic Science & Law Assignment - |1 Anoushka Singh Songara
201734301035
th
9 semester, B.A. LL.B.

1. Anwesha Banerjee, The Tandoor Murder Case: Case Comment, 1 Int’l J. of

Legal Sci. and Inno. (2019)
2. Venkatesan, J (8 October 2013). "Sushil Kumar spared noose in tandoor
murder case". The Hindu. Retrieved 22 October 2018.
3. As reported in the Hindu [ New Delhi Feb 20, 2007]
4. As reported by the police, present in Connaught Place, New Delhi. (The
Hindu Jan 18, 2007)
5. 2013 (2) SSC 693: the facts that have been established without any doubt.
Refer to the full judgment of the case.
6. "Samachar.Com". 8 October 2013. Archived from the original on 1
February 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
7. Dhana v. State of Bengal, (1994) 2SCC 220.
8. Mohd. Chaman v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi), (2001) 2 SCC 28
9. Sushil Sharma v. The State (NCT) of Delhi, (2014) 4 SCC 317

10