LexSUSHIL SHARMA versus THE STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 16 S.C.R. 616 SUSHIL SHARMA v. THE STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2007) OCTOBER 8, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM,CJI AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- s.302 and s.120-B rlw s.201 - Naina C Sahni murder case - Prosecution case that appellant killed his wife since he was suspecting that she was having some relationship with PW-12 and a/so because appellant did not want to make his marriage with the deceased public while the deceased was insisting on the same - Further case of the D prosecution that after killing her, the appellant with the help of A2 burnt her dead body in the tandoor of the Bar-be-Que restaurant owned by the appellant - Conviction of appellant uls.302 and s.120-B r/w s.201 and of A2 uls.120-B r/w s.201 - Justification - Held: The prosecution successfully proved E beyond reasonable doubt number of incriminating circumstances against the accused - Chain of circumstances complete and unerringly pointed to the guilt of appellant - Established circumstances capable of giving rise to inference inconsistent with any other hypothesis except the guilt of F appellant - Prosecution, therefore, proved that the appellant alone committed the murder of deceased in the flat where they were staying together and then conspired with A2 to do away with the dead body of the deceased so as to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder - At the instance of appellant, A2 burnt the dead body in the tandoor - G Appellant, therefore, rightly convicted uls.302 /PC and u/s.201 rlw s.120-B /PC - A2 rightly cqnvicted uls.201 rlw s.120-B. Sentence I Sentencing - Appropriate sentence - H 616 SUSHIL SHARMA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 617 Mitigating circumsfances - Appreciation of_- Murder- Naina A Sahni murder case - Appellant convicted by Courts below for murdering his wife and for thereafter burning the dead body in the tandoor of the Bar-be-Que restaurant owned by him - Death sentence awarded by Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court - Propriety - Held: Appellant suspected the B fidelity of deceased and the murder was the result of this possessiveness - When appellant was taken to the Mortuary and the dead body was shown to him, he started weeping - He was therefore not remorseless - Medical evidence did not establish that the dead body was cut - No recovery of any c weapon like chopper which could suggest that appellant had cut the dead body - Murder was the outcome of stFained personal relationship - It was not an offence against the Society - Appellant had no criminal antecedents - No evidence led by the State to indicate that he was likely to 0 revert to such crimes in future - Appellant was the only son of hiS.f.J§~ents, who were old and infirm - Appellant already spent more than 10 years in death cell - The offence was brutal but brutality alone would not justify death sentence in this case - Death sentence commuted to 'life imprisonment in view of the mitigating circumstances - Life sentence for the E whole of remaining life subject to remission granted.by the appropriate Government u/s. 432 CrPC, which, in turn, subject to procedural checks mentioned in the said provision and further substantive checks in s.433-A CrPC - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 and s.120-B rlw s.201 - Code of Criminal F Procedure, 1973 - ss.432 and 433A. The prosecution case was that in the night intervening 2/7/1995 and 3/7/1995, the appellant killed his wife since he was suspecting that she was having some G relationship with PW-12 and also because appellant also did not w<1nt to make his marriage with the deceased public while the deceased was insisting on the same. The further case of the prosecution was that after killing her, the appellant with the help of A2 burnt her dead body H 618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 16 S.C.R. A in the tandoor of the Bagia Bar-be-Que restaurant owned by the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and also u/s.120-8 r/w s.201 IPC and sentenced him to death. A2 was convicted u/s. 120-8 r/w s. 201 IPC. Three other accused- A3, A4 and A5, who were B tried u/s. 212 IPC, were acquitted. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the death sentence awarded to the appellant. In the instant appeal, the questions for consideration C before this Court were whether the conviction of appellant was correct and whether the death sentence awarded by the trial
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.