Woman, brother get life term for killing her husband in Delhi
A woman and her brother, who were convicted for murdering her husband in 2011, have been awarded life imprisonment by a Delhi court which relied on the medical evidence and statements of family members of the victim.
New Delhi: A woman and her brother, who were convicted for murdering her husband in 2011, have been awarded life imprisonment by a Delhi court which relied on the medical evidence and statements of family members of the victim.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Gautam Manan handed down the jail term to Kanta, a resident of Najafgarh here, and her brother Anil Kumar after holding them guilty of the offences under sections 302 (murder) and 34 (common intention) of IPC.
The court relied on the testimony of the father, mother and brother of deceased Anil, saying their deposition proved that both the convicts were involved in assaulting the victim which resulted in his death.
"The testimony of PW 1, 2 and 3 (family members of victim) conclusively proves that Kanta and Anil were involved in beating the deceased (Anil) and they were the last persons seen with the deceased and thereafter, the deceased was found dead," the court said.
"The prosecution has duly proved their case that both the persons are guilty of murdering the deceased in furtherance of their common intention," it said and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 each on the convicts.
According to the police, Kanta, along with her brother Anil Kumar, had murdered her husband on July 14, 2011 by beating him with a wooden stick. They had later strangulated the victim, it said.
The court noted that as per testimony of the witnesses, including family members of the deceased, on the day of incidence there was a quarrel between Kanta and her husband and these witnesses had heard the noise of beating.
"PW 3 Rajbala (victim's mother) herself saw through an opening that Kanta was beating her son (deceased) with a wooden stick and Anil was seated besides the sister," it said.
The court said that post mortem report of the victim showed that there were 35 injury marks on his body.
Both the convicts had denied allegations levelled against them and had claimed that due to property dispute, Kanta was falsely implicated in this case.