The recent bone-chilling incidents of chopping bodies and then dumping or disposing of them, including the Shraddha Walkar case, have sent shockwaves through the city of Delhi.
The details of Walkar’s murder in Chhatarpur have brought back memories of a case from the past – the tandoor murder case of 1995.
Around 27 years ago, the gruesome tandoor murder case shook the entire nation, leading to the downfall of the government and humiliating the country’s dominant political party, as described by former Delhi Police Joint Commissioner Maxwell Pereira, who headed the investigation at the time.
The victim, Naina Sahni, was a remarkable individual in her own right. At the tender age of 30, she was a member of the Congress party, held a pilot’s license, and owned a boutique.
Tragically, she fell victim to her husband, Sushil Sharma, a youth Congress leader, who shot her in a fit of suspicion regarding her alleged extramarital affair.
The crime took place on July 2, 1995, at their residence in Delhi.
While the execution of the crime was not as gruesome as Walkar’s case, it was equally brutal when it came to erasing the evidence.
At that time, Sahni had been planning to relocate to Australia, seeking assistance from a former partner to facilitate the move.
Following the murder, Sharma initially contemplated disposing of the body in the Yamuna River. However, encountering heavy traffic on the ITO bridge around 9:30 p.m., he devised an alternate plan.
Unable to dump the body in the Yamuna River, Sharma resorted to burning it in a tandoor or clay oven at the Bagiya Bar-Be-Que restaurant in Hotel Ashok Yatri Niwas.
After seven years, in 2003, Sharma was sentenced to death by a trial court, a verdict upheld by the Delhi High Court in 2007. However, on October 8, 2013, the Supreme Court commuted Sushil Sharma’s death sentence to life imprisonment.
Fast forward to December 21, 2018, when the Delhi High Court ordered the immediate release of Sushil Sharma. His counsel, senior advocate N. Hariharan, argued that Sharma had no prior criminal record and was approaching 60 years of age. Additionally, Hariharan highlighted Sharma’s satisfactory conduct during his time in Tihar jail.
In the Shraddha Walkar murder case, Aaftab Amin Poonawala, who chopped her live-in partner’s body in several pieces and then disposed of them in Mehrauli forest, faces charges under sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (Disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), reminiscent of the charges Sharma faced in his case.
Over the past seven months, a disturbing trend of heinous crimes involving dismemberment and brutal murders has been observed. These acts of violence resemble the horrifying scenes of a butcher’s shop.
A simple Google search reveals numerous cases of stabbings and dismemberments occurring throughout the nation, painting a grim picture. Is it the time for lawmakers to deal with such heinous murder cases on a fast track and stringent punishment should be given to the culprit?
Advocate Anant Malik said that the nature of these criminal acts is becoming increasingly unsettling. “Whether it is cases involving persons in romantic relationships or those driven by rivalries and disputes, the level of violence and brutality is deeply concerning,” he said.
“The rise in such cases highlights the urgent need for a thorough examination of the root causes and effective measures to prevent and address such horrific crimes in our society,” said Malik.
Advocate Shashank Dewan, a legal expert specialising in criminal law, emphasised the abhorrent nature of murder and its profound impact on the social fabric of any society.
“In India, the legal framework for addressing murder is laid out in Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860. What sets murder apart from culpable homicide not amounting to murder is the presence of specific intent and mens rea, which refers to the mental state or intention to cause death,” he said.
“The laws definitely should be updated in a manner whereby opinions of medical experts are taken into consideration to help in the trial of such cases. Medical and legal discrepancy must be done away with at the earliest to arrive at a correct adjudication in such cases,” said Malik.
However, other than IPC 302 (murder) in such heinous cases, most chargesheets also mention Section 201, which comes into play after the commission of the murder.
“This offence applies when there is the dismemberment of body parts or destruction of evidence, such as weapons, which are crucial material evidence in murder investigations,” said Dewan.
“Unfortunately, there is a growing trend of such actions taking place. However, advancements in the field of forensic science, including DNA profiling, have proven to be beneficial for investigation agencies in identifying victims and establishing the chain of events that led to the commission of the crime of murder,” he said.
“If there is planning involved such as the purchase of a weapon prior to the act, it definitely raises the question of premeditated murder. Such factors need to be also seen while deciding the murders committed in such heinous manners,” said Malik.
“The judiciary and investigation agencies play a crucial role in ensuring justice for the victim. It is essential to conduct faster trials with an increased number of Fast Track Courts and expedited proceedings. Only through these measures can we strike justice for the victim, thereby deterring the commission of such heinous crimes in the future,” Dewan claimed.
(The story has been published via a syndicated feed.)
