HC acquits man of murdering daughters

MUMBAI: Five months after he was sentenced to death for killing his two minor daughters by throwing them into a well, the Bombay high court last week acquitted 36-year-old

MUMBAI: Five months after he was sentenced to death for killing his two minor daughters by throwing them into a well, the Bombay high court last week acquitted 36-year-old Buldhana resident Mahendra Parve.

HT Image

The division bench of justice BP Dharmadhkari and justice AS Chandurkar gave the benefit of doubt to Parve, primarily owing to a botched investigation and failure of the prosecution in presenting essential evidence.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on January 24, 2014, when Parve came home in Buldhana’s Jaulka village in the evening in an inebriated state and quarrelled with his wife upon seeing his father-in-law in his house. He also threatened to kill their daughters. Next morning, Parve allegedly left the house with the girls — Kalyani , 5, and Shital, 2.

Around 7.30am, Parve told one of the villagers that he had just thrown both his daughters into a well. Stunned, the man alerted Parve’s family, who then field a complaint against him. The police recovered the bodies and arrested Parve.

Taking a plea of denial before the trial court, Parve said that after leaving his house, his uncle came to him and took custody of the girls and later killed them. The court, however, refused to believe this and relying on circumstantial evidence, convicted him for killing the minor girls and sentenced him to death.

The high court, however, found that the alleged chain of events was not proved beyond doubt. The bench noticed that the prosecution did not bring on record the facts of Parve’s quarrel with his wife and his threat to kill their daughters. Besides, the prosecution also failed to produce Parve’s extra-judicial confession to the villager.

“Merely because the daughters were last seen with their father and their dead bodies were found in the well, an inference of the father’s guilt cannot be drawn, especially when there is no eyewitness,” said the high court. The bench also observed that in the absence of motive, failure to explain or substantiate his defence cannot be viewed as an adverse circumstance against the 36-year-old.