HC refuses leniency to man who killed father,upholds jail term

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and seven-year jail term awarded to a man for "brutally" attacking and strangulating to death his father who had objected to the consumption of liquor inside the house by the convict and his friend.
Justice S P Garg also refused to modify the sentence of the convict Rohit, saying he "deserves no leniency" as instead of taking care of his aged father, he inflicted serious injuries on him and strangled him to death.
"The appellant (Rohit) who was expected to take care of his aged father, brutally inflicted multiple injuries by blunt/sharp object and also caused his death by manual strangulation. The only fault of the victim was that he had objected to the consumption of liquor by him (Rohit) and his friend inside the house. The appellant deserves no leniency," the court said.

It also observed that the sentence awarded by the trial court "cannot be termed unreasonable or excessive".
The trial court had convicted and awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment to Rohit for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for strangulating his father to death apart from inflicting several grievous injuries on him.
According to the prosecution, on the evening of February 14, 2011, Rohit was having liquor at his home in Karol Bagh here with a friend, when the victim arrived there in an intoxicated condition and started hurling abuses at both of them for drinking alcohol inside the house.

Thereafter, the friend left and Rohit dragged his father by the collar, it said.

A quarrel ensued between them and after some time, Rohit left the premises, the prosecution had said, adding that his father was found dead when he returned 15 minutes later with his sister.
The police had also contended that Rohit was the last person seen alone with the victim and the court had convicted him on the basis of this and other circumstantial evidence.
The high court upheld the conviction, saying Rohit's "unnatural conduct" of leaving his father in a critical condition, his motive to inflict injuries on the victim and the "false" statement given by him during trial "cumulatively" result in the conclusion that the crime was committed by him.