TANDOOR MURDER CASE OF NAINA SAHNI

*Case Name: Tandoor Murder Case

*Date: 2 July 1995

*FIR Number: 486/95

*Examinee Name: Sushil Sharma

*Mode of Receipt of Material: Offline

*Condition of Parcel: Proper sealed evidence

*Description of Parcel: The evidence packets consist of all sealed packets which include Alcohol bottle, the physical evidence, biological evidence, and all other evidence with proper chain of custody.

SUMMARY:

Naina Sahni was the victim of the tandoor murder case. On 2 July 1995, she was killed by her husband Sushil Sharma, a Congress youth leader and Member of the Legislative Assembly . Naina herself was a worker in the congress party. Sushil Sharma was convicted for the murder by the Trial Court, Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. On 8 December 2020, Sharma was not found guilty by the High Court.

Sushil Sharma objected to his wife Naina Sahni's friendship with Matloob Karim. Matloob and Naina were classmates and fellow Congress workers. Sushil suspected Naina of having an extramarital relationship with Matloob. On the night of 2 July 1995, Sushil came home and saw Naina talking on the phone and consuming alcohol. Naina, on seeing Sushil, hung up. Sushil redial the phone to find Matloob on the other end. Enraged, he fatally shot Naina. He took the body to a restaurant called Bagiya and tried to dispose it off with the restaurant manager, Keshav Kumar. The body was put in a tandoor (clay oven) to burn. Police arrested Keshav Kumar but Sharma managed to flee. He surrendered on 10 July 1995. The case also involved the use of DNA evidence to establish the identity of the victim.

The first postmortem was conducted at LHMC Delhi, the cause of death was opined to be burn injuries. The second postmortem was ordered by Lieutenant Governor Delhi, which was conducted by a team of three doctors from three different hospitals headed by T D Dogra. They detected two bullets in head and neck region, opined cause of death due to firearm injuries. With that, the course of investigation changed and the actual story came to light. This case is a landmark citation for fruitful second autopsy.^[5] Delhi Police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet on 27 July 1995 in a Sessions Court. On 7 November 2003, Sushil Sharma was sentenced to death and restaurant manager, Keshav Kumar, was given seven years rigorous imprisonment.

Sharma appealed against District Court Judgement in Delhi High Court trial court judgement. The Delhi High Court upheld the lower courts' decision. In 2003, a city court awarded him death sentence which was later upheld by the Delhi High Court in 2007. In 2013, the SC commuted his death sentence stating that there was "no evidence" of Sharma chopping his wife's body. On 8 October 2013, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi of the Supreme Court upheld Sharma's conviction. However, the court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment because Sharma doesn't have a criminal antecedent and it is not a crime against society, but it is a crime committed by the accused due to a strained personal relationship with his wife.

EXAMINATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

The examination was conducted using a combination of well-established forensic methods and specialized instruments.

1. Forensic Pathology and Medicolegal Death Investigation –

The charred corpse after having been identified by Matloob Karim to be that of Naina Sahni was subjected to postmortem examination. The first postmortem conducted at Lady Hardinge Medical College was erroneous and according to it, the death was caused by burn injuries. The second postmortem conducted by doctors from three different hospitals revealed that there were two bullets penetrated her body, one in the head and another in the neck. During the course of the second postmortem examination the dead body was subjected to X-ray examination and the X-ray reports showed the presence of one metallic piece in the skull and one in the neck region of the dead body.

2. DNA Analysis –

Evaluation by the Forensic Science Laboratory of blood-stained articles seized from the crime scene proved that the blood belonged to the B blood group, which matched that of the victim. Identity was confirmed by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad (CCMB)27, by matching the DNA extracted from the muscle pieces attached to the charred bone with Mrs. Naina’s parents’ DNA 28. The results from all these forensic techniques concretely confirmed that the body which was burned on that fateful night in the tandoor was indeed hers, but that was not the cause of her death; instead, it was a mere attempt to dispose of her body. Her actual death was because of the bullet shots fired from the gun found in possession of the accused, confirming his guilt.

3. Ballistics –

 The trajectory of the case was altered by the ballistics expert who determined that the two lead bullets recovered from the victim’s body and one lead bullet, along with five cartridge cases found at Mandir Marg flat, were all fired from the same Arminius revolver found in possession of the defendant Sushil Sharma in Bangalore. This successfully confirmed his involvement in the homicide.

4. Crime Scene Investigation -

Keshav Kumar's white kurta and white pants, which were both stained with blood, were taken into custody. Along with other items, the investigating officer removed one paijeb (anklet) from the scene of the fire. On closer inspection, it was discovered that there was dried blood in the car's dicky and some hair stuck to the back of the front seat. Another watch was discovered inside the vehicle. The police found several items during their search of the apartment where they were living, including a blood-stained piece of cloth from a mattress, blood on the carpet, some of a woman's hair, a lead bullet, and five empty cases of fired cartridges. Along with these items, Bagia Bar-be Que-related documents were also taken.

RESULT:

The examination of evidence has yielded the following results:

1. Techno-Legal Analysis –

Nothing, including forensic science, which employs scientific techniques to incriminate people, is exempt from the law of limitation, as was previously stated. For a variety of reasons, including the degree to which one can rely on scientific procedures, the validity of it, the admissibility of such pieces of evidence in a court of law, and the extent to which it aids in criminal investigations, it has remained under scrutiny. These are just a few of the many issues that have been raised.

2. Autopsy –

Serious debates have also surrounded the practice of having the accused or victim of certain crimes undergo medical examinations. Its admissibility in a court of law is the basis for the argument that it is unlawful. However, Section 5333 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1976 very clearly states that the police are permitted to proceed with the medical examination if they believed it would provide some information about the crime. In 2005, the Criminal Procedure Act was changed to permit "the testing of blood stains, DNA profiling, semen test, swab, hair sample etc.”.

Conclusion: One can clearly accept that the role played by forensic science is indeed salient in light of the conversation that has so far resulted. It is impossible to dispute the use of scientific methods, particularly when it comes to crime scene examinations that result in criminal trials. The entire case, which has been covered in detail above, mainly relies on forensic evidence to support the conviction of the accused. This evidence ranges from the discovery of blood-soaked objects at the crime scene to ballistic and DNA testing. Therefore, it is true to say that having an understanding of forensic services and technologies enables one to take advantage of evidentiary opportunities that would not otherwise be available. But it's crucial to understand the criminal justice system.

Opinion and Recommendation:

It is recommended that Sushil Sharma should be further investigated and prosecuted for their alleged involvement in the case. Additionally, the collection and preservation of additional evidence should be pursued to strengthen the case.

*Name: Prachi Mudgal

*University Name: Vivekananda Global University

*Course Name: B.Sc (H) Forensic Science