Tandoor murder case: Human life, personal liberty valuable, says Delhi HC

The bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal also asked the prison authorities to bring Sharma’s records and fixed the matter for further hearing on December 20.

The Delhi high court on Wednesday observed that t both human life and personal liberty should have value. The court’s observation came while hearing a plea by Tandoor murder case convict Sushil Sharma, wherein he has challenged his 29-year-old incarceration.

The Delhi HC was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by Sushil Sharma, wherein he has stated that he has already served 29 years in jail with remission. (HT File)

“Human life and personal liberty both should value,” Justice Siddharth Mridul said.

The bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal also asked the prison authorities to bring Sharma’s records and fixed the matter for further hearing on December 20.

Appearing for Sharma, senior advocate N Hariharan contended that his client was deeply in love with the deceased, Naina Sahani. He also stated that Sharma had no criminal antecedents and is soon going to attain the age of 60. He asserted that Sharma had already reformed himself in the past decades and that he should be released since he is eligible for release under the guidelines laid by the Sentence Review Board (SRB).

The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by Sharma, wherein he has stated that he has already served 29 years in jail with remission.

Senior counsel Hariharan said Sharma’s conduct is satisfactory and that he is presently lodged in the semi-open jail in Tihar. He learns and teaches computer and nothing adverse was reported during parole. “Nothing is there in which premature release can’t be granted,” he added.

The bench sought to know from the counsel for the petitioner whether 25 years is the maximum years after which a convict can be released. In reply, the counsel said the answer is yes.

On Tuesday, the court had sought to know from the Delhi government that why his release was denied by the sentence review board on grounds of the crime’s brutality and perversity, when the Supreme Court had, in fact, stated that there was no evidence of Sharma chopping his wife’s body and burning it in an oven.