Lalit D’Souza got light sentence because of contradictory statements
The contradictory statements of the doctor along with Lorna’s false statement allowed Lalit D’Souza to get off lightly. The court in its order has observed that Lalit fired only after Lorna provoked him.mumbai Updated: Feb 14, 2012 01:24 IST
The contradictory statements of the doctor along with Lorna’s false statement allowed Lalit D’Souza to get off lightly. The court in its order has observed that Lalit fired only after Lorna provoked him.
Lalit, who had allegedly pumped six bullets into his sister in a dispute over parking space in 2007 was, on February 1, convicted by the court for causing grievous hurt to his sister. The court acquitted him of charges of attempted murder observing he had no intention of killing his sister.
The court order, which was made available to the concerned parties on Monday, observed that in the case of attempt to murder the intention and knowledge of causing death is more important than the nature of injuries.
The court observed that it was not a premeditated incident. The incident took place because of circumstances.
“The shots were fired after a heated exchange and also considering the fact that there was provocation from Lorna who had parked her car behind that of D’Souza’s friend for no reason,” the court said.
The court also took note of the false statement by Lorna before the court. She had said there was no heated argument before Lalit shot her. However, witnesses refuted her claims. Further, there was also contradiction about injuries on her back. The court found the statements of Lorna and the doctor about injuries on her back contradictory.
The court observed, “The evidence pertaining to the doctor was not reliable with regard to the nature of injuries, the number of injuries and the circumstances under which the injuries were caused. The doctor has not noted and the prosecution has not brought on record the path of the bullet in the body.”
The court observed that there were several discrepancies in the medical reports and the contradiction by the doctor regarding Lorna’s injuries, because of which the court acquitted him of the charges of attempt to murder.
Further, the prosecution failed to prove the case about the possession of arms and bullets within the permissible limit. The court observed that there was no explanation by the police, about how and from where the bullets were recovered from Lalit’s house.
However, both Lorna and Lalit are set to challenge the order before the Bombay high court.