Woman gets life term, fined 25k for setting mother-in-law afire
The court also imposed a fine of Rs25,000 on the convict, identified as Anshu alias Priyanka for the offence.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
According to the prosecution, complainant Sujit Kumar, a resident of Tiwaripur Bagia Jajmau, lodged an FIR stating that around 2am on Nov 2, 2020, his wife locked him inside a room before setting his mother Kiran Devi on fire.
His sister later unlocked the room and he rushed out to find his mother engulfed in flames. Kumar suffered burn injuries while trying to extinguish the fire.
The elderly woman was first admitted to Kanshi Ram Hospital and later referred to UHM Hospital, where she succumbed to her burn injuries during treatment.
Initially, police booked the case under Section 326 of the IPC (causing grievous hurt by dangerous means). Following her death, the charges were amended to Section 302 (murder). Additional District Government Counsel Shiv Bhagwan Goswami told the court that the prosecution had presented evidence to establish the accused's role in the crime.
During the hearing on the quantum of sentence, the defence sought leniency, arguing that it was the accused's first offence, that she was a mother of two children and that no eyewitness directly saw her set the victim on fire. They urged the court to impose the minimum sentence.
The prosecution, however, pressed for the death penalty, terming the act as premeditated and heinous. The court observed that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced Anshu to life imprisonment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Non-application of mind': What Supreme Court observed while cancelling Kannada actor Darshan's bail; pulls up Karnataka HC for giving ‘acquittal order to accused'
BENGALURU: Cancelling the bail granted to Kannada actor Darshan and his six aides in the Renukaswamy murder case, the Supreme Court Thursday observed that the order of the Karnataka high court depicted "non-application of the mind". The apex court noted that courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage. On Dec 13, 2024, the high court single bench judge Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted regular bail to Darshan (accused number 2), Pavithra Gowda (accused no 1) along with other accused - R Nagaraju, Anu Kumar alias Anu, Lakshman M, Jagadeesh alias Jagga and Pradoosh S Rao - on grounds of non-furnishing of a memo for reasons of arrest as per the mandate of CrPC, several inconsistencies in statements of witnesses, etc. The state govt challenged the verdict. Now, after 244 days, the Supreme Court reversed the order. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Gold Rates Today in Bengaluru | Silver Rates Today in Bengaluru During the course of hearing the appeals, the SC bench of Justices JB Paridiwala and R Mahadevan even remarked that the high court had handed out "an acquittal order to the accused". The bench, in the 66-page order, stated: "In the present case, the high court failed to properly evaluate the nature of allegations, involving premeditated murder and conspiracy, attracting Section 302 of IPC read with Section 120B IPC; the chain of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, call records and forensic report showing a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence (e.g., by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo disposal of blood-stained clothes and vehicle cleaning); and the incriminating role of A2 (Darshan), who was in constant touch with A1 (Pavithra Gowda) and other co-accused before and after the incident, and who facilitated the conspiracy and cover-up. On the other hand, it simply recorded that A2 (Darshan) had 'no direct role' and there was 'no prima facie case', without discussing or analysing the incriminating material on record. This amounts to non-application of mind and renders the order unsustainable in law." By treating Darshan's stature as a mitigating factor, the high court committed a "manifest perversity" in the exercise of its discretion, thereby warranting cancellation of bail. "A2 is not a common undertrial. He enjoys celebrity status, mass following, political clout and financial muscle. His conduct inside jail - including recorded instances of VIP treatment, violations of jail rules and registered FIRs for misuse of facilities - reflects his capacity to defy the system even while in custody. If a person can subvert the prison system, the risk of interference with evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses and tampering with the course of justice is both real and imminent," the top court observed. Misconduct & influence Moreover, Darshan's immediate return to social events sharing the stage with prosecution witnesses, and continued influence over police witnesses, despite being on bail, establish that his liberty is a threat to the integrity of the proceedings, the court noted. "Granting leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder sends the wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system. Accordingly, the accused's antecedents, influence, jail misconduct, and the seriousness of the charges against him make him unfit for bail," the SC stated. The apex court noted that on a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the high court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions of legally relevant facts. Moreover, the high court undertook an extensive examination of witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and delays - issues that are inherently matters for the trial court to assess through cross-examination. The trial court alone is the appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility and reliability of witnesses, the SC observed. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
News18
7 hours ago
- News18
SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment
The court observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course The Supreme Court, on August 12, held that where a matrimonial relationship has ended in divorce and both parties have settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution arising from that past relationship should not be allowed to continue as a form of harassment. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Navneesh Aggarwal and his parents against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated August 1, 2024, which had declined to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC by his former wife. The wife had raised no objection to the quashing, and both parties had ended their relationship through divorce by mutual consent, withdrawing all pending cases. The bench said that within the framework of inherent powers, a High Court may quash a criminal proceeding, complaint, or FIR if it is satisfied that, in light of such a settlement, there is little likelihood of conviction and that continuing the proceedings would result in injustice. The court stressed the need to apply the law in a way that addresses genuine grievances while preventing misuse. The judges noted that once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on, continuing criminal proceedings against family members, particularly in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. Such continuation, they said, only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer active. In this case, neither party was interested in pursuing criminal proceedings. The bench invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to advance complete justice, quashing the chargesheet and FIR registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, along with all other criminal proceedings arising from them. The court referred to Dara Lakshmi Narayana v State of Telangana (2025), which held that criminal law is not to be used as a tool of harassment and that judicial scrutiny must guard against such misuse. It also cited Mala Kar v State of Uttarakhand (March 19, 2024) and Arun Jain v State of NCT of Delhi (April 1, 2024), in which it had exercised powers under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes once the parties had divorced, holding that continuation of prosecution in such circumstances amounted to an abuse of process. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, noting that the former wife no longer intended to prosecute the case. It found that continuing the proceedings would only result in harassment to the appellants, given the facts of the matter, and that no useful purpose would be served by taking the case to its conclusion. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on March 6, 2018. About ten months later, the wife left the matrimonial home with her daughter from an earlier marriage. Multiple cases were filed thereafter, including the present FIR. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted by the Family Court on January 19, 2024, and all other pending proceedings initiated by the wife were withdrawn. When the appellants sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court, their plea was dismissed on the ground that certain allegations relating to the victimisation of the child had been sufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court, however, found no justification for continuing the criminal proceedings in view of the mutual settlement, divorce, and the wife's lack of interest in pursuing the matter. tags : divorce marriage supreme court view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 15, 2025, 05:17 IST News india SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
11 hours ago
- The Hindu
Man gets 20-year jail for sexual assault on minor girl
The Fast-Track Mahila Court here on Thursday sentenced a 27-year-old man to 20 years' imprisonment for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl in 2020. According to the prosecution, a 17-year-old girl went missing on July 9, 2021, and the Vellithiruppur police registered a missing case. Investigation revealed that R. Gowrishankar of Chennampatti had befriended the girl, kidnapped her, married her, and sexually assaulted her. The police traced and rescued her, and registered a case under Section 366 (kidnapping) of the IPC, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and Sections 5 (L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Gowrishankar was subsequently arrested. After trial, Judge C. Sornakumar sentenced him to 20 years for sexual assault with a fine of ₹5,000, five years for kidnapping with a fine of ₹5,000, and one year for marrying her with a fine of ₹5,000. The sentences will run concurrently. He has been lodged in the Coimbatore Central Prison.
