This Case Commentary is written by Ananya Sharma, a Fourth-Year Law Student of Symbiosis Law School

Details of the Case-

Court- Rose Avenue District Court, New Delhi

Citation- CNR No. DLCT11-000512-2019

Bench- Ms. Geetanjali Goel, ASJ/ Special Judge

Decided on- 18.08.2021

Case Type- Criminal case

Parties-

Plaintiff- State
Respondent- Shashi Tharoor

Introduction-

The primary issue in the case concerned Sunanda Pushkar's murder. She was discovered dead in the Leela Palace Hotel in New Delhi on January 17, 2014, and was the spouse of Indian politician and parliamentary candidate, Shashi Tharoor. Given that Pushkar had passed away within seven years of her marriage, the police filed an inquest report by Section 176 of the Cr. P.C[1]. In her murder case, which the Delhi Police filed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[2], Shashi Tharoor was thought to be the primary culprit. Subsequently, the inquiry showed that the State has adequate evidence against the accused under Sections 498-A[3] and 306[4] The IPC deals with a woman's spouse or relative abetting her in suicide and subjecting her to cruelty, respectively.

The following are the main issues and questions in this case:

1. Cause of Death: Determining whether Sunanda Pushkar’s death was a suicide, natural death, or a murder.

2. Evidence: Reviewing the evidence of the prosecution which included documents, statements of witnesses, expert opinion of forensic analysis, and electronic evidence.

3. Mens Rea: To establish whether Shashi Tharoor had any intention or motive to cause harm to Sunanda Pushkar.

Court's Interpretation:

1. 1. Medical Records: The All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) performed forensic analysis and an autopsy on the deceased. The deceased's corpse had fifteen antemortem injuries, according to the investigation. Various samples of her clothes and viscera were collected and examined for any foreign material blood or semen.

The report finally suggested that death was caused by Alprazolam poisoning, although it was undetermined whether the victim had ingested the poison herself or was poisoned by somebody else.

2. Witness Testimonies: Statements of 97 witnesses, including relatives, friends, and hotel staff were considered in court. While the testimonies provided some insights about the events that led to Sunanda Pushkar’s death, they did not directly accuse Shashi Tharoor beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Electronic Evidence: The electronic evidence included tweets on formerly Twitter, text messages, and emails exchanged between Shashi Tharoor and Sunanda Pushkar. There was evidence regarding the illicit relationship of the accused with a Pakistani journalist, and the deceased had confronted her through e-mails which were found on her laptop during the investigation, but the Court concluded that it did not play a role in the death of the deceased.

The case of the Prosecution:

The prosecution contended that the possibility of homicidal death could not be ruled out in the case. It also relied on the chargesheet which pointed out that soon before her death, she was in a depressive state of mind and was suffering from mental agony. The prosecution stated that the illicit relationship of the accused aggravated her mental agony. Further, the accused had left her alone at Delhi airport while she was in a wheelchair as she was diagnosed with Lupus.

And it also went on to tell the court that Shashi Tharoor and Sunanda Pushkar had a falling out and that was why the latter sought to harm the former. Pushkar stated that “she had no will to live and she prayed for death.”[5]

In this sense, the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's extramarital affair contributed to the deceased's death.

Judgment:

The prosecution's evidence was deemed insufficient by the court to prove Shashi Tharoor's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court used the case of State of Punjab v. Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and Anr.[6] To buttress its opinion that the accused's extramarital affair did not amount to abetment. The Court also referenced the case of Saroj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.[7], in which the victim's spouse committed suicide and was found not guilty because there was insufficient evidence against him. The Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence against the accused to prove his involvement in the abetment. Shashi Tharoor was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses covered by Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC, so he was released from custody. The court referenced the ruling in Krushanahari Debnath & Ors. v. State.[8], where the conviction of an accused person was overturned for lack of evidence supporting the claim of suicide commission, to dismiss the charges under Section 498-A. The Court invoked the ruling in Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.[9] To nullify the accusations brought under Section 306. In that particular case, the charges were dismissed due to the lack of prima facie proof of the offense's elements.

Significance:

1. Burden of Proof: The case reiterates the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

2. Media Influence: The case highlights that public opinion and media trials should not interfere with the judicial process; and the Courts should ensure that no hindrance is caused in any case, especially one involving high-profile parties by the media or the public.

3. Forensic Evidence: The case also brings out the need for forensic evidence in criminal prosecution and more so, the need to get the best and most thorough forensic investigation of a case. The case also highlights the importance of medico-legal evidence such as polygraph tests, and how technology needs to be developed to analyze crucial evidence in such criminal cases.

4. Judicial Prudence: The verdict also shows the importance of judicial responsibility in the evaluation and corroboration of the evidence and ensuring that no one innocent is put behind bars.

Conclusion:

This case serves as a great illustration of the significance of forensic and medico-legal evidence in criminal proceedings. The case also serves as a reminder of the significance of evidentiary credibility, the presumption of innocence, Audi-alter partem, and due process of law.
Finally, the State v. Shashi Tharoor case brings to light the difficulties the legal system and investigative organizations encounter when addressing media coverage and public opinion of the accused in high-profile cases.

References

[1] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 176

[2] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 302

[3] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 498A

[4] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 306

[5] State v. Shashi Tharoor PS

[6] State of Punjab v. Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and Anr 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 331

[7] Saroj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1998 SCC OnLine Raj 347

[8] Krushanahari Debnath & Ors. v. State 1995 SCC OnLine Ori 314

[9] Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1994 SCC OnLine Raj 138