Delhi court has recently convicted a man of the charge of murdering his wife in 2014, saying the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused killed his wife.
Additional Sessions Judge Ravindra Kumar Pandey heard a case registered against Kishore Kumar, who was accused of inflicting multiple stab injuries on his wife, Urmila Devi, in Sangam Vihar here on May 8, 2014.
The judge stated in a recent order, “The prosecution on the basis of the testimony of eye witness prosecution witness (PW)1 (accused’s daughter-in-law) and testimonies of other witnesses and scientific evidence produced has successfully proved beyond all the reasonable doubt that the accused committed the murder.”
He added, the accused is held guilty and convicted of the offence under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC.
After receiving the Delhi government’s affidavit on November 30, the court posted the case on December 7 for filing a report from the Delhi State Legal Services Authority. The arguments on sentencing will be next heard after the completion of the mandatory procedure.
The court stated that the prosecution’s case regarding the date, time and place of the incident and injuries received to the victim was corroborated.
It noted that according to the daughter-in-law’s testimony, Kumar was an alcoholic, who didn’t work and frequently sparred with Devi, suspecting her character.
Furthermore, the court noted her testimony, according to which Kumar revealed his motive for killing Devi by making a statement that he would kill her and then go to prison.
Noting her testimony, the court stated that the daughter-in-law witnessed the murder and after killing his wife, Kumar fled from the spot. It said, he was arrested later and the weapon of offence, a knife, was recovered at his instance.
The court stated that these circumstances were relevant to the case and were “duly proved”.
It stated that the knife recovered at the instance of Kumar was the weapon of offence used against the victim.
Furthermore, it rejected the defence counsel’s arguments regarding certain contradictions in the recovery of the knife, saying the inconsistencies were minor.
Regarding the cause of death, the court noted that according to the doctor who conducted the postmortem, the victim died because of “haemorrhagic shock caused by the injury to the heart.”
