The convict, a tailor, had set his sister-in-law ablaze after she refused his sexual advances last year
The convict, a tailor, had set his sister-in-law ablaze after she refused his sexual advances last yearu00a0
A fast-track court has sentenced 10-years of rigorous imprisonment to a tailor who burnt his sister-in-law to death after she refused to his sexual advances in Banashankari last year. Anbu, who worked in his elder brother's shop, was married with three children. However, he used to harass Naveena, his sister in-law to have a physical relationship with him whenever his brother was away.
That won't do: As a last resort, Anbu said that he is the sole breadwinner of the family, and pleaded to minimise the sentence. However, the court
rejected his plea. Representation picNaveena initially avoided him and did not complain to her husband fearing serious repercussions.
When her harassment became unbearable, Naveena warned Anbu that she would complain to her husband, to which Anbu threatened to kill her if she revealed this to anyone.
On August 4, 2009, Anbu made another futile attempt, following which, Naveena told her husband, Shivalingiaah, who had a tiff with Anbu, and shunted him out. A humiliated Anbu purchased around five litres of petrol and barged into Naveena's house when Shivalingiaah was away. He poured the petrol on her and set her on fire, using a cigarette lighter.
While the passers-by and neighbors rushed to Naveena's help, Anbu barged into Shivalingiaah's tailoring shop which is bang opposite to the house, poured petrol and set fire and ran away.
The Banashankari police who have taken up the case arrested Anbu and filed a charge sheet against him. Anbu, in his defence, tried to divert the case stating that the motive behind the gruesome murder was financial and not sex, as alleged. However the prosecution established the motive by cross-examining the witnesses.
u00a0
As a last resort, Anbu pleaded that he is the sole breadwinner of the family of wife and three children and pleaded to minimise the sentence. However, the court rejected his plea stating that his gruesome act is not a spur of the moment act, but a planned one and Anbu had executed the murder as per his warnings.
