Revenge: Woman ‘raped by son’s in-laws’

“The men said that my son had disgraced them and this was their revenge,” says victim.


Our Correspondent July 30, 2013
“The men said that my son had disgraced them and this was their revenge,” says victim. PHOTO: FILE

BAHAWALPUR: A woman on Tuesday claimed to have been raped by her son’s in-laws because her son had married their daughter without their consent.

She said that they had also abducted her five-year old granddaughter.

The woman, a resident of Mubarakpur, told media that her son had married the girl, a resident of Dera Izat, a month ago. This infuriated the girl’s family members Abdul Aziz, Sajid, Tariq and Majid who then abducted her granddaughter, the woman said.

A complaint was filed at the Cantonment police station.

The woman said that she went to her daughter-in-law’s house along with several policemen to recover her granddaughter, but could not find her. Instead, she said, three men took her to a room and raped her even though the police were there.

“The men said that my son had disgraced them and this was their revenge,” she said.

She said that police had registered a rape case against the three men, but had not ordered a medical report yet.

Cantonment SHO Irfan Akbar said that police had registered an FIR against the criminals and was investigating the matter.

He said that the woman’s claim that the police were present at the scene of the crime was false.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 31st, 2013. 

COMMENTS (13)

ABKhan | 8 years ago | Reply

@KDP:

"At least Indians do not rape relatives or incest"

First, So you are proud that Indians rape often but not relatives.

Second, Yes you are right they dont rape, just simply marry their sisters (not incest at all, isnt it?). Just for reference research a bit about great Hindu emperor "RAJA DAHIR"

@Rashid

"It has been there for a long time in Pakistan, just now it started showing up on the papers……"

Please start making some sense. I know most people in South Asia loves to make claims without any proofs.

np | 8 years ago | Reply @AcharGosht: "@WebEditor It should be Sons-in-law " You are wrong SOns-in-law would mean husbands of her daughter. In this case though it was the in-laws of her son. So Son's in-laws is actually accurate.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read