The Delhi High Court, on Friday, upheld a life sentence given to a man for killing his daughter. The court said there was evidence that Bhagwan Das committed the crime as he was furious with his daughter Seema for abandoning her husband and living in sin with a man, Sriniwas, who was the son of his maternal aunt.
The relationship between Sriniwas and Seema was that of an uncle and cousin niece — a relationship prohibited under Hindu Law. In North India, such relationships are treated incestuous and invites social stigma.
“It is apparent that frustrated on account of the obstinate conduct and stand taken by his daughter, seeking to preserve the family honour, the appellant strangulated to death his daughter,” a Bench headed by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog said upholding the life sentence given to Das by the trial court.
Das had strangled Seema with a wire at his home on May 14, 2006, when she was visiting.
The convict’s lawyer, Rakhi Dubey, pleaded for a lesser sentence saying it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the father had acted under “loss of self control” after she said something which provoked him.
But the court said there was no evidence to this effect and it was clear that he was “in full control of himself”.
‘Women can be charged under DV Act’
In another judgement, the Delhi High Court, on Friday, ruled that a woman can complain against female members of her husband or live-in partner’s family under the Domestic Violence Act.
The court said if they stood exempted, the husband would use female members of his family to perpetrate violence on his wife as no one can be punished.
The significant ruling virtually puts an end to confusion in the minds of subordinate court judges in Delhi as they were adopting conflicting stands. While some entertained such petitions, others dismissed it as “not maintainable”.
Justices A.K. Sikri and Ajit Bharihoke said this while dismissing a petition filed by a woman Varsha Kapoor against whom her daughter-in-law filed a DV case in a trial court. She had sought the quashing of proceedings contending that female members cannot be booked.
Her lawyer Arvind Jain argued that the law enacted for the welfare of women cannot be used against them.