SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 955

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.
Sushil Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State of N.C.T. of Delhi - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.693 OF 2007
Decided On : OCTOBER 8, 2013.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the murder was the outcome of strained personal relationship, and it could be said it was not an offence against the Society. The appellant was no criminal antecedents and he wass not a confirmed criminal and no evidence was led by the State to indicate that he was likely to revert to such crimes in future, it could not be said that there is no chance of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 120-B, 302 and 201 - Evidence Act - Section 27 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 41A – Offence of punishment – Offence of murder - Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order convicted appellant Section - Convicted appellant Keshav Section read with Section - Since charge Section read with Section was held not proved against he was acquitted of said charge - Charge Section was held not proved against and they were acquitted - Additional Sessions Judge forwarded death reference to Delhi High Court as required Section Code of Criminal Procedure did not file any appeal - As stated above by impugned judgment Delhi High Court confirmed death sentence awarded to appellant – Held, Murder was outcome of strained personal relationship - Offence against Society - Appellant has no criminal antecedents - He is not confirmed criminal and no evidence is led by State to indicate that is likely to revert to such crimes in future - Therefore not possible in facts of case to say that there is no chance of appellant being reformed and rehabilitated - Court do not think that that option is closed - Though it may not be strictly relevant court may mention that appellant is only son of his parents who are old and infirm - As of today appellant has spent more than years in death cell - Undoubtedly offence is brutal but brutality alone would not justify death sentence in this case - Above mitigating circumstances persuade us to commute death sentence to life imprisonment - In several judgments some of which court have referred to hereinabove this Court has made it clear that life sentence is for whole of remaining life subject to remission granted by appropriate Government Section which in turn is subject to procedural checks mentioned in said provision and further substantive checks - Court are inclined to issue same direction - Appeal disposed

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. In this appeal, by special leave, appellant - Sushil Sharma (“the appellant”) has challenged judgment and order dated 19/02/2007 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2003 confirming the death sentence awarded to him in Sessions Case No.88 of 1996. He was tried in the said case along with A2-Keshav Kumar (“A2-Keshav”), A3-Jai Prakash, A4- Rishi Raj and A5-Ram Prakash.

2. The appellant was tried for offences punishable under Section 302, Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (“the IPC”). A2-Keshav was tried under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. A3-Jai Prakash, A4-Rishi Raj and A5-Ram Prakash were tried under Section 212 of the IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 3/11/2003 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. He convicted the appellant and A2-Keshav under Section 120-B read with Section 201 of the IPC. Since the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC was held not proved against A2-Keshav, he was acquitted of the said charge. Charge under Section 212 of the IPC was held not proved against A3-Jai Prakash, A4-Rishi Raj and A5-Ram Prakash and they were acquitted. Learned Additional Sessions Judge forwarded the death reference to the Delhi High Court, as required under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’). A2-Keshav did not file any appeal. As stated above, by the impugned judgment, the Delhi High Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellant.

PROSECUTION CASE:

3. The appellant was the President of Delhi Youth Congress (I), at the relevant time. Naina Sahni (‘the deceased’) was the General Secretary of the Delhi Youth Congress (I) Girls Wing. The appellant and the deceased were working for Delhi Youth Congress. The office of the Delhi Youth Congress was earlier situated at 4, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi. Later on, it was shifted to 2, Talkatora Road, New Delhi. The deceased used to visit the appellant at the office of Youth Congress at the above-mentioned places. In the year 1992, the appellant obtained Flat No.8/2A situated at Mandir Marg, New Delhi (“Flat No.8/2A” or “the said flat”) from it’s allottee - Jagdish Prasad. The deceased used to visit the appellant at the said flat also. At times, she used to stay there in the night. The appellant and the deceased got married secretly. The deceased, therefore, continued to live in the said flat as the wife of the appellant till she was murdered.

4. The India Tourism Development Corporation (‘the ITDC’) which was running its unit called Ashok Yatri Niwas at Ashoka Road entered into a licence agreement on 10/11/1994 with Lalit Kishore Sachdeva, Virendra Kumar Nagpal, Manoj Malik, R.P. Sachdeva and the appellant - partners of M/s. Excel Hotel & Restaurant Inc., situated at 159, Kamla Market, Delhi. The licence granted by the ITDC permitted the user of park in front of main gate of Ashok Yatri Niwas towards Ashoka Road by the said partners of M/s. Excel Hotel & Restaurant Inc. for running a ‘Bar-be-Que’. As per the licence, Bar-be-Que was continuously run by the appellant at the said park. It was called ‘Bagia Bar-be-Que’. There was a tandoor in the said park. The park had fencing of bamboos called Jafri.

5. On the night of 2-3/07/1995, PW-3 HC Kunju, who was posted at the P.S. Connaught Place and PW-4 Home Guard Chander Pal of Delhi Home Guard were patrolling in the Ashoka Road, Western Court Area. At about 11.00 p.m., when they reached near Ashok Yatri Niwas they heard the cry of PW-7 Anaroo Devi saying ‘hotel main aag lag gayi’ (hotel is on fire). Having heard the cry, PW-3 HC Kunju and PW-4 Home Guard Chander Pal rushed towards Janpath lane where Ashok Yatri Niwas is situated. They noticed smoke spiralling and flames leaping out of Bagia Bar-be-Que from the side of the kitchen. PW-3 HC Kunju rushed to the nearby telephone booth to inform the c













































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top