A clandestine marriage that began in the corridors of student politics in New Delhi spiraled into intense possessiveness and distrust, ultimately culminating in one of modern India's most notorious criminal cases. On the night of 2 July 1995, smoke pouring from an eatery in the heart of the national capital led patrolling personnel to uncover a grisly attempt to destroy human remains inside a commercial oven. The victim was 29-year-old Naina Sahni, a former Delhi University student and Congress worker, who was fatally shot by her husband, Sushil Sharma.
Student Politics, a Secret Wedding, and Escalating Friction
Naina Sahni entered active political life after concluding her studies at Delhi University, choosing to work within the Youth Congress. It was at the party's offices that she crossed paths with Sushil Sharma, an ambitious political figure who eventually rose to become the president of the Delhi Youth Congress. A romantic relationship blossomed, leading to their quiet marriage in 1992.
Following their nuptials, the couple shared a residence at a flat on Mandir Marg in Delhi while continuing their respective political activities. Yet, domestic harmony remained elusive. Naina persistently urged Sushil to publicly acknowledge their marital status, but he consistently declined to bring the relationship into the open. The secrecy bred mutual frustration, and the interpersonal tension between them widened steadily over the years.
Lingering Ties and the Spark of Marital Suspicion
Sushil Sharma exhibited intense possessiveness toward Naina, continually questioning her personal loyalty. Central to his suspicions was her continued association with Matloob Karim, a close friend from her days in student politics. Karim and Naina had shared a romantic past prior to her marriage to Sushil, though religious differences had prevented them from formalizing their bond through marriage.
Judicial findings recorded in the Supreme Court's 2013 verdict established that communication between Naina and Karim had not ceased. Between 3 pm and 4 pm on 2 July 1995, Naina placed a telephone call to Karim seeking his assistance to relocate to Australia. The persistent jealousy harbored by Sushil, coupled with his unresolved doubts regarding her fidelity, became the primary motive behind the violence that followed later that evening.
The Fatal Gunfire at the Mandir Marg Residence
By the evening of 2 July 1995, Sushil and Naina were present together inside their Mandir Marg flat. As their interpersonal dispute reached a boiling point, Sushil drew his licensed revolver and discharged three rounds at Naina. Two of the bullets struck her body, one penetrating her neck and the other lodging directly in her head. The cranial wound caused severe trauma and proved fatal on the spot.
Faced with the reality of her death, Sushil immediately initiated steps to conceal the homicide. He wrapped Naina's body, carried it into his vehicle, and drove across central Delhi to Bagia Bar-be-Que, a restaurant owned by him located within the Ashok Yatri Niwas complex on Ashoka Road.
An Attempted Destruction of Evidence in Bagia Bar-be-Que
Arriving at the restaurant late that night, Sushil instructed the establishment's manager, Keshav Kumar, to dismiss the working staff. With the premises cleared of casual witnesses, Sushil and Keshav moved Naina's body inside. Their plan was to completely incinerate the remains inside the restaurant's large clay tandoor.
The fire in the tandoor initially lacked sufficient intensity to consume the remains, prompting Sushil to direct Keshav to fetch butter from the kitchen supplies. Keshav brought out a 500-gram packet of butter to feed the blaze, causing the flames to roar and thick plumes of smoke to billow upwards into the night air. The Supreme Court later observed that medical records could not definitively confirm whether the body had been dismembered prior to being placed in the oven, noting in the second post-mortem analysis that any physical separation of limbs could well have been the natural result of severe burning.
An Alert Passerby and Swift Intervention by Patrolling Officers
Around 11 pm, a passerby named Anaroo Devi spotted dense smoke and high flames escaping from the eatery. Alarmed by the spectacle, she raised a loud commotion, warning that the hotel complex was ablaze. Her shouts caught the attention of Head Constable Kunju and Home Guard Chander Pal, who happened to be on routine patrol duty nearby.
Kunju initially sought to contact the police control room, but finding a nearby public telephone booth locked, he rushed directly to an adjacent police post to log the fire incident. Returning promptly to the site, both officers approached Bagia Bar-be-Que and entered through the rear entrance. Inside, they found Keshav Kumar standing over the active tandoor, feeding wooden logs into the flames. When confronted, Keshav claimed he was merely burning old waste paper alongside outdated Congress banners and election posters.
The officers found the explanation unconvincing and refused to stand down. Additional police personnel and hotel security guards soon converged on the scene. Sushil Sharma, who was lingering by the entrance gate, fled the area into the night. Once the fire was extinguished, responders inspected the interior of the tandoor and uncovered the charred remains of a woman. Keshav was immediately detained and subsequently placed under arrest, formally initiating an intensive murder probe.
Forensic Breakthrough: DNA Profiling and Ballistic Linkages
The initial post-mortem examination tentatively attributed the cause of death to hemorrhagic shock stemming from external trauma. A comprehensive second post-mortem examination was conducted on 12 July 1995, during which radiological scans detected two distinct metallic fragments embedded within the skeletal remains, located in the skull and the cervical spine. These objects were identified as spent bullets.
To establish the identity of the charred body beyond legal doubt, investigators turned to the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad. Tissue samples extracted from the victim's remains were subjected to DNA profiling and matched against reference genetic material collected from Naina Sahni's biological parents. The conclusive laboratory findings confirmed that the recovered body was indeed that of Naina Sahni, marking an unprecedented milestone in the deployment of DNA forensic evidence in an Indian criminal prosecution.
Interstate Pursuit and Capture in Bangalore
Following his escape from the restaurant, Sushil Sharma launched a multi-city flight to evade law enforcement. On the night of 2 July, he sheltered at Gujarat Bhawan in Delhi alongside his associate, D.K. Rao, before slipping out of the capital. Moving across state lines, he initially secured an order of anticipatory bail from a sessions court in Madras (now Chennai). However, prompt legal intervention by the Delhi Police prompted the Madras High Court to promptly cancel that protection.
His evasion ended on 10 July 1995, when Bangalore Police spotted and apprehended him while he was traveling with his legal counsel, Anantanarain. Custody was handed over to the Delhi Police the following day, and he was transported back to the capital under escort. Investigators subsequently located a hotel room utilized by Sushil in Bangalore, where they seized his licensed revolver along with live ammunition. Ballistic comparisons definitively verified that the bullets retrieved from Naina's body had been fired from that exact weapon.
Conspiracy Allegations and Shifting Narratives
In public statements following his arrest, Sushil Sharma claimed he was the target of an orchestrated political conspiracy. During an interview, he voiced deep apprehension that he might be eliminated in police custody. He also offered an alibi, insisting he had departed on a religious pilgrimage at the time the homicide occurred.
Responding to these representations, a magistrate directed that his defense counsel be permitted to attend his interrogation sessions and instituted a requirement that all food served to him be tested beforehand. Publicly, Sushil maintained a defiant tone, remarking to reporters, "I have done nothing to repent." Yet, in private exchanges with investigating officers, his stance shifted, leading him to plead, "I might have made a mistake but you must help me out of this jam."
Judicial Trajectory: Trial Conviction, Commutation, and Release
On 3 November 2003, a trial court found Sushil Sharma guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence, handing down a sentence of capital punishment on 7 November. Keshav Kumar received a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment for his participation in the disposal of the corpse, while being acquitted of the murder charge. In February 2007, the Delhi High Court confirmed the death penalty imposed on Sushil.
The legal battle eventually reached the Supreme Court of India, which delivered its verdict on 8 October 2013. The apex court upheld the underlying conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The bench took into account mitigating factors, highlighting that Sushil possessed no prior criminal record and that the prospect of his social rehabilitation and reform remained viable. The court further observed that the tragic killing originated from a deeply troubled domestic relationship rather than premeditated terrorism or public menace.
On 21 December 2018, the Delhi High Court directed that Sushil Sharma be released from prison immediately, determining that his continued incarceration could no longer be legally justified under the prevailing sentence-remission guidelines. The 1995 Naina Sahni case remains one of India's most prominent historical legal battles, remembered both for its shocking domestic tragedy and for establishing DNA science as an indispensable tool in criminal jurisprudence.
