Nearly eight years after two teenaged siblings, Kavita Sahu and Gaurang Sahu, were found murdered in their Sector-41 house, the Punjab and Haryana high court has acquitted the lone convict, their distant maternal uncle.
A trial court had on February 17, 2014, awarded life sentence to the convict, Rahul, after holding him guilty of the double murder.
Kavita, 17, and Gaurang, 15, were stabbed to death at their house on December 16, 2011, while their mother, Malti Devi, a teacher, was away.
Their distant uncle, Rahul, was arrested for the gruesome crime on January 18, 2012. According to police, Rahul wanted to get intimate with Kavita, who had objected to it.
On Tuesday, allowing an appeal by Rahul, the bench of justice Ajay Tewari and justice Harnaresh Singh Gill said, “In our opinion, in the present case, the chain of evidence is not complete, which could prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”
MOTHER WAS AWAY ON DAY OF CRIME
While Malti Devi lived in Chandigarh with her children, due to her job at a Panchkula school, her husband, Umesh Sahu, also a teacher, was posted in Mewat, Haryana.
Kavita was a student of Guru Nanak Public School, Sector 36, and Gaurang of Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 37.
On the fateful day, their mother had left home at 8.30am for work, while the siblings stayed home due to a holiday.
When Malti returned at 3pm, she found Kavita in a pool of blood with a cut on her neck. On rushing upstairs, she found her son in a similar state.
As per medical records, 13 injuries were inflicted on Gaurang with a knife and eight on Kavita.
CRIME OF PASSION
Police probe had found that on the day of the crime, Rahul had visited the family’s house, with the intention of forcing Kavita to develop physical relations with him.
This led to a heated argument between them, during which Rahul took out a knife and stabbed Gaurang repeatedly, before attacking Kavita. The accused then scattered household articles to make it appear a case of robbery.
HOW THE CASE FELL FLAT
The prosecution had argued that Kavita told her close friend, Sidharath Vashisht, a neighbour, regarding harassment by Rahul.
To this, the court observed that rather than informing her parents, the prosecution could not prove why the victim informed her neighbour, when it was but natural for her to inform her parents in the first instance.
The prosecution could also not prove that Rahul was a drug addict.
There was no witness to the crime; trial court had convicted Rahul on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution had claimed that blood stains were found on the “loi” recovered from Rahul. Some neighbours had said that they saw a person, wearing a loi, going out of the house on the day of the crime.
However, the blood stains could not be compared with samples from the spot, as CFSL marked them “not properly presented”.
The owner of the garment could also not be established
Prosecution had claimed that Rahul hurt a finger during the scuffle. But medical opinion attributed it to an old injury.
