It wasn’t possible to prove who killed Jigisha, says Delhi Police investigator
While commuting the death sentence of two convicts in Jigisha Ghosh murder case, Delhi High Court said that it was proved that three accused were involved in the crime but who strangulated her was not clearUpdated: Jan 09, 2018 12:09 IST
An investigator who pursued the case against Jigisha Ghosh’s killers said that there was no way they could establish without a doubt which of the three actually strangulated the woman.
“Jigisha was strangulated to death. There was no other weapon used in the murder so it was not possible for us to gather fingerprints. So, there is no way to scientifically establish who actually killed Jigisha,” said an investigator directly associated with the probe.
While commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment for Jigisha’s killers, the Delhi High Court had pointed out that it was not clear as to which of the three convicts — whether all of them or only some of them — actually committed the murder. “What is proved beyond doubt is that all of them were involved in the crime,” the high court said.
“Since the court upheld their involvement in the crime, it shows that we did not lack in our investigations. We proved that all the three men had a common intention of killing her (Jigisha). After that, it is a matter of interpretation and the court’s job to judge whether it was the rarest of rare crime or not,” the probe official told HT.
The officer said that his interaction with the killers showed they were “beyond reform”. “They had shown no remorse. They would have killed more people had they not been caught. They did not believe in letting go of their victims after robbing them. They thought leaving the victims alive would get them caught,” said the officer.
The three killers are also on trial for robbing and killing two other persons, TV journalist Soumya Vishwananthan and a cab driver, within a six month period spanning between 2008 and 2009.
Responding to the verdict, the then south Delhi DCP, HGS Dhaliwal, who had led the probe in the case, also said, “The lower court as well as the high court has upheld the convictions, showing we were accurate in our probe. They have only differed in seeing it as a rarest of the rare case.”