A woman has been sent to jail for life along with two others by a Delhi court for killing her husband and throwing his body in a jungle. Additional Sessions Judge Sanjeev Kumar handed down the jail term to victim’s wife Prabha along with her friends Sachin and Sunil while holding them guilty of offences of murder, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence.
“The recovery of skeleton/dead body/bones, clothes, motorcycle of the victim and car belonging to accused Prabha at the instance of accused Sachin and Sunil establishes their involvement in the murder of Rakesh, who was Prabha’s husband,” the judge observed. The court also directed the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to decide an appropriate compensation for the victim’s father, who had lodged the complaint.
The case had come to the fore after Rakesh’s father lodged a missing complaint alleging that his son went to his in-laws’ house in south Delhi’s Jaitpur area on May 7, 2011 to meet his wife, who was living separately due to their strained relation, but did not return the next day. The police then traced Sachin and Sunil after going through call records of the woman, who was constantly in touch with the two men before the murder, which led to the recovery of Rakesh’s bones from a jungle two weeks later. The court, however, noted that the cause of death could not be ascertained, but the circumstantial evidence established he was killed by the trio.
They were arrested on May 23, 2011 and several items were found during the investigation which proved their guilt, the court said. “I am of the considered view that circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt can be drawn have been fully proved and circumstances are of conclusive in nature,” it said.
“All the circumstances are complete and there are no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of all the three persons and totally inconsistent with their innocence,” the judge said. During the trial, the trio submitted they were innocent and claimed to have been falsely implicated.
They also sought leniency from the court citing difficult financial background.