New Delhi: Observing that "married women in India are safer on the street than in their matrimonial homes", the Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the life term awarded to a man for killing his wife in 2011.
A bench of justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Mukta Gupta made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Pradeep, who was convicted by the trial court for murdering his wife, on the ground that he was absconding from the spot of crime which was proof of his guilt.
"It is trite that where a wife is murdered in her matrimonial house and the presence of husband is established, law casts an obligation on the husband to explain how his wife died and if he does not do so an adverse inference can be drawn against the husband of being the assailant," the bench said.
"More so in India, for the reason we find that the every tenth murder appeal we are hearing has the husband before us as the convicted accused. The victim is the wife. The place of the crime is the matrimonial house.
"The other nine out of ten murder appeals which we are dealing with has the place of the crime outside the house and the victim is a male. It appears that married women in India are safer on the street than in their matrimonial homes," the bench said.
Pradeep had approached the high court challenging his conviction and sentence contending that he was falsely implicated in the case as he was not present at the spot when his wife was killed.
According to the police, they had received an information on May 15, 2011, that a man had murdered his wife with a spade in a building on Najafgarh Road. Police said that Pradeep's wife was a mother of three daughters and after the incident came to light, he fled the spot and was arrested the next day.
The trial court had convicted Pradeep for murdering his wife on the basis of evidence brought before it and also on the statements of Pradeep's brother and his wife, who had testified that the accused was present in the house at the time of the occurrence of the crime.
The high court, in its verdict, dismissed the contentions of the convict observing if somebody else had injured his wife then Pradeep should have taken her to hospital.
"The appellant (Pradeep) absconding from the place of the crime is proof of his guilt. If somebody else had injured his wife, it would be the appellant and not his co-brother Mahender who would take Santoshi to the hospital," it said.
"We concur with the view taken by the trial judge that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the appellant of having hit his wife Santoshi on the head with the 'phawra'," the bench said.
Comments
0 comment