Husband, in-laws get life for killing woman
27 Dec 2012 12:13 AM GMT
A man and his parents were sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his wife by a Delhi court which also ordered disciplinary action against two cops for ‘deliberate inaction and negligence’ in the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat awarded life term to Mukesh and his parents Dinesh Kumar and Krishna Devi saying the woman died in their presence and ‘the silence of the accused persons’ as to how she had died ‘is only proof of their guilt’.
The victim Gayatri, who was married to Mukesh in December 2005, died in mysterious circumstances on 16 March 2011. She was declared brought dead at a hospital in west Delhi and ligature marks were noticed around her neck by the doctors.
Her parents who reached the spot later had recorded their statement before the magistrate alleging that the woman’s in-laws use to harass and beat her and had demanded more dowry soon after her marriage.
‘In the instant case, where there is no manner of doubt that the deceased (Gayatri) died in the presence of accused persons and they only knew how did she die, they cannot get away by choosing to remain silent.
‘It was necessary for them to disclose in detail the circumstances in which the death of Gayatri was caused, in order to exculpate themselves. The silence of the accused herein is only proof of their guilt,’ the court said, imposing a cost of Rs 5,000 each on the man and his parents.
The court pulled up the investigating officer involved in the case, saying they have ‘shown utter callousness and casual approach’, regarding probing the manner in which the woman died. It said ‘stern action to be taken against them’.
‘Therefore, the Additional Commissioner, South West District is directed to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against sub inspector Birender and Inspector Praveen Kumar for their aforesaid acts of deliberate inaction and negligence,’ the judge said.
The court in its judgement observed that the investigation in this case had been ‘namesake’ only.
‘In fact it would be right to say that there has been no investigation at all. The conduct of the investigating officer had been extremely reckless, indifferent and casual.
‘It appears that he did so either on account of lack of proper training and expertise or for some ulterior reasons,’ the court.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat awarded life term to Mukesh and his parents Dinesh Kumar and Krishna Devi saying the woman died in their presence and ‘the silence of the accused persons’ as to how she had died ‘is only proof of their guilt’.
The victim Gayatri, who was married to Mukesh in December 2005, died in mysterious circumstances on 16 March 2011. She was declared brought dead at a hospital in west Delhi and ligature marks were noticed around her neck by the doctors.
Her parents who reached the spot later had recorded their statement before the magistrate alleging that the woman’s in-laws use to harass and beat her and had demanded more dowry soon after her marriage.
‘In the instant case, where there is no manner of doubt that the deceased (Gayatri) died in the presence of accused persons and they only knew how did she die, they cannot get away by choosing to remain silent.
‘It was necessary for them to disclose in detail the circumstances in which the death of Gayatri was caused, in order to exculpate themselves. The silence of the accused herein is only proof of their guilt,’ the court said, imposing a cost of Rs 5,000 each on the man and his parents.
The court pulled up the investigating officer involved in the case, saying they have ‘shown utter callousness and casual approach’, regarding probing the manner in which the woman died. It said ‘stern action to be taken against them’.
‘Therefore, the Additional Commissioner, South West District is directed to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against sub inspector Birender and Inspector Praveen Kumar for their aforesaid acts of deliberate inaction and negligence,’ the judge said.
The court in its judgement observed that the investigation in this case had been ‘namesake’ only.
‘In fact it would be right to say that there has been no investigation at all. The conduct of the investigating officer had been extremely reckless, indifferent and casual.
‘It appears that he did so either on account of lack of proper training and expertise or for some ulterior reasons,’ the court.
Next Story
