Man convicted for murdering woman in busy market in 2017

The court also awarded him rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of ₹10,000 under the Arms Act.

A sessions court sentenced a 32-year-old man to life imprisonment for murdering a 19-year-old female sales executive of an Ayurvedic products store in Sector 21 on March 28, 2017.

A 19-year-old female sales executive of an Ayurvedic products store was murdered in 2017.

The police said the accused used to stalk her and had proposed to her. However, she refused, following which the man shot her dead. Additional sessions judge Prashant Rana also imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on the convict for murder. He will be required to serve six additional months of rigorous imprisonment if he fails to pay the fine.

The court also awarded him rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of ₹10,000 under the Arms Act.

The convict, Pawan Kumar alias Matru, was convicted under sections 302 (murder), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) and relevant sections of the Arms Act.

According to the police, the incident took place when Gunjan was leaving the shop. Pawan fired two shots at her from a close range. After shooting her, the accused fled from the spot with his accomplice. The shooting in the busy market had shocked the shoppers present at the spot.

The father of the victim had alleged in the police complaint that the accused had threatened his daughter in Chauma village market, and despite a complaint being lodged at the Bajghera police post, no action was taken. He had also told the police that Pawan was putting pressure on the girl to marry her, and was infuriated by her refusal to pay heed to his advances.

The public prosecutor for the victim’s family submitted in the court that the convict had murdered a young girl in a cold-blooded manner. He argued that he had no right to curtail the life and liberty of an individual. The girl had the right to lead her life according to her own wish and marry a person of her own choice.

“While balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the present case does not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ warranting capital punishment. The punishment must commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the convict. The offence committed by the convict is of highest gravity, and deserves to be strictly punished so that he repents and reforms himself and no one else commits such an offence [sic],” stated the court order.

As per the court order, both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period for which the convict has already remained in custody during the trial shall be offset from the cumulative sentence.