A city sessions court in Ahmedabad has delivered a stern verdict, sentencing four men to life imprisonment for a brutal murder committed in full public view in the city's historic walled area. The court emphasized the heinous nature of the crime, which originated from a bitter dispute over a property will.
The Verdict and the Convicts
On Friday, Additional Sessions Judge B B Jadav pronounced life terms for Montu Gandhi, also known as Montu Namdar, Vishv Rami, Jayraj Desai, and Sunil Bajaniya. All the convicts are in their twenties. The court also imposed a substantial financial penalty, ordering each to pay a fine of Rs 35,000. They were found guilty under charges of murder, criminal conspiracy, and rioting for the killing of Rakesh Mehta in June 2022.
Roots of Violence in a Family Will
The fatal attack was not a random act of violence but the violent culmination of a long-standing family conflict. The victim, Rakesh Mehta, was a close friend of Pavan Gandhi, the brother-in-law of prime convict Montu Namdar. The dispute centered on a will drafted by Namdar's father-in-law, which notably excluded his own daughter—Namdar's wife—from any inheritance.
According to the prosecution, represented by advocates Hardik Patel and Vimal Barot, Rakesh Mehta had stood as a witness to the execution of this contentious will. This connection made him a target in the eyes of the accused. The murder was carried out with baseball bats in the Hajira ni Pol locality of Khadia, a densely populated area, showcasing a brazen disregard for law and public safety.
A Notorious Past and the Court's Stern Message
The court took note of the background of the main accused, Montu Namdar, who had a notorious reputation in the Khadia area and was previously booked for operating a gambling den. His criminal conduct continued even after the crime, as he escaped from police escort and later jumped bail before being re-apprehended.
In his sentencing remarks, Judge Jadav underscored the gravity of committing a murder in public view. He stated it was an act intended to instill fear among the community. The judge explicitly connected the crime to the property dispute, calling it "highly disgraceful" and a "heinous act in society."
"Such actions are not acceptable in a civilised society, and those who commit them cannot be treated lightly. Otherwise, no one will feel safe in society, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that all law-abiding citizens feel secure and can live their lives safely and sustainably," the court observed, justifying the stringent punishment.
This verdict sends a powerful message about the consequences of taking the law into one's own hands, especially in disputes over property and inheritance. It reaffirms the judiciary's role in protecting citizens and maintaining societal order against such brutal acts.
