Tripura: Mother murdered over a financial dispute; daughter and son-in-law arrested
Agartala: Police in Tripura’s capital arrested a woman and her husband on Tuesday for allegedly murdering the woman’s 70-year-old mother in a dispute over a fixed deposit and a demand for money, officials said.
Police identified the deceased as Sulekha Dey of West Bhubanban area under West Agartala police station. Police have named her daughter, Bulti Deb, and her husband, Bishnu Deb, as the accused.
Sadar Sub-division police officer D.P. Ray said the case took a dramatic turn during the investigation, as money itself emerged as the central motive. Ray said, “Initially, both Bulti Deb and Bishnu Deb filed a complaint stating that some unknown criminals had attacked the elderly woman in their house. They took her to GB Pant Hospital, where she died during treatment.”
However, police found several inconsistencies in their accounts. The couple lived in the same house with the elderly woman, and investigators found no evidence to support their initial claim of an outsider’s involvement.
Ray said, “During further investigation, we learned about a recurring family dispute. Bishnu Deb was demanding money from his mother-in-law for a new business venture, which she refused. There was also a fixed deposit of Rs 2.5 lakh that was nearing maturity. Bishnu needed this money, which he claimed was for his daughter’s and girlfriend’s weddings.”
According to the police, when the elderly woman resisted their demands, the accused allegedly attacked her, inflicting serious injuries. They then took her to the hospital after police intervention, where she later died.
To cover up the crime, the couple allegedly removed a gold ornament from the deceased’s hand. Officials said police later recovered the ornament from their possession, which they had partially melted down. West Agartala Police Station Officer-in-Charge Rana Chatterjee said that digital and scientific evidence played a crucial role in the case. He said, “Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that the petitioner had incriminated himself and attempted to obstruct the investigation.”
