Kotdwar 2022 murder case: All three convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in under three years
A young woman's murder at a resort near Rishikesh in September 2022 had shocked the entire state. Now, nearly three years later, a Kotdwar court has sentenced all three accused to life imprisonment with rigorous punishment.
The ruling highlights the thorough police investigation and strong legal efforts made by the prosecution.
Quick action by police
Within 24 hours of the case being handed over to the police, all three accused were arrested and key evidence was collected. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by senior woman IPS officer P. Renuka Devi was formed by Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami on 24 September. The SIT conducted a detailed investigation and submitted a 500-page charge sheet supported by over 100 witness statements.
Government support to the family
The government provided financial support of ₹25 lakh to the victim's family. A job was also given to her father and brother, showing the administration's commitment to helping them during this difficult time.
Supreme Court approval of probe
The Supreme Court found the investigation to be fair and satisfactory, reflecting the state's seriousness and transparency in handling the case.
The government also invoked the Gangster Act against the accused, in addition to murder charges.
Pledge for continued legal support
Chief minister Dhami assured that the government will continue strong legal efforts if needed. He said delivering justice was a top priority, and the case would be pursued further to ensure justice is fully served.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
10 years on, justice awaited in Punjab sacrilege cases
Bathinda: Come Sunday, Punjab will mark 10 years since June 1, 2015, when the bir of Guru Granth Sahib was stolen from a gurdwara in Burj Jawahar Singh Wala village near Bargari, Faridkot, and which eventually led to the sacrilege of the Sikh scripture later in Oct that year, triggering a turmoil in panthic politics. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now With justice still awaited in the sacrilege cases of Oct 2015 and police firing upon protesters later, Sikh organisations have decided to mark the day by holding a protest march from Gurdwara Burj Jawahar Singh Wala to the light point intersection of Kotkapura, where police took action against protesters in the early hours of Oct 14, 2015. Thr groups accuse successive govts of the state by using the emotional issue of sacrilege and the subsequent killing of two protesters for political gains, but failing to deliver justice. Investigations into the case are yet to reach a conclsuive end in the courts. A Punjab Police special investigations team (SIT), headed by retired DIG Ranbir Singh Khatra, claimed to have cracked the case, but it did not result inany convictions. Dera Sacha Sauda head Gurmeet Ram Rahim was also named in the cases and in the chargesheets filed by the police in three interrelated sacrilege cases, but no headway was made. Sikh organisations have only angered after cases were transferred to courts in Chandigarh. "Justice being elusive makes us think that Sikhs are treated differently even in Punjab, where we are in majority," said Behbal Kalan police firing victim Krishan Bhagwan Singh's son, Sukhraj Singh, who held a long protest for justice. Even though the he was named in sacrilege cases and his sect's member Pardeep Kler was arrested on Feb 9, 2024, Ram Rahim and his adopted daughter, Honeypreet, were not brought to Punjab for investigation. "This points to the non-seriousness of the govts in delivering justice," said Sukhraj. "It seems even a decade is not enough to provide justice, especially when the entire Sikh Panth is demanding it. Right from Shiromani Akali Dal to Congress and Aam Aadmi Party, all played with the sentiments of Sikhs and looked only into electoral gains but failed when it came to delivering justice," said Gurdeep Singh Bathinda, who was associated with the cases from the beginning.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
SC declines to interfere with HC order on compensation to OJS examinee
Cuttack: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the Orissa high court's direction to Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation for procedural lapses that resulted in non-evaluation of an answer of a candidate who appeared for the Odisha Judicial Service (Main) Examination. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Jyotirmayee Dutta appeared for the OJS Main Exam 2022, results of which were declared Dec 4, 2023. She failed to qualify for the next stage by a narrow margin of five marks. Acting on Jyotirmayee's petition, the HC directed OPSC to pay the compensationto her within 60 days on Feb 13 this year. But OPSC had filed a special leave petition (SLP) in SC challenging the HC order. While dismissing the SLP, the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Bijay Bishnoi said, "Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the cost amount awarded by the high court in favour of the respondent — a young law graduate, who is aspiring to become a judicial officer." However, the bench added, "The observations made in the impugned judgment are only in the context of the mistake detected in evaluation of one of the answers written by the respondent and the same are not to be treated as a precedent to be applied in future cases." According to case records, Jyotirmayee filed a petition in HC on Aug 27, 2024 alleging that a question in the 'law of property' paper was left unevaluated, and its marks were not added to the total. She asserted that if her answers had been properly scrutinised, the outcome of the examination would have been different, and she would have qualified for the next stage. Acting on it, the HC arranged for her answer script to be independently assessed by experts from three reputed universities. Though non-evaluation of a question was confirmed and marks were awarded for it, the petitioner did not achieve the necessary marks to pass the exam. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Accordingly, the HC dismissed the petition on Feb 13, but ordered, "However, considering the mental trauma and financial burden the petitioner has endured in pursuing this case to highlight the said lapse, this court deems it appropriate to award compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner, which shall be paid by the OPSC within a period of 60 days from the date of this judgment."
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
HC junks plea seeking SIT, aid for ‘persecution of tribal Christians'
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
