Radhika Yadav murder case: What Delhi HC advocate says | Interview

Tennis player Radhika Yadav was shot dead at her home in Gurugram's upscale Sushant Lok area in Haryana on Thursday (July 10). Her father, Deepak Yadav, 49, confessed to the murder and is currently in police custody. Delhi High Court advocate Isha Bhalla explores what the law has to say in this case, and what lies ahead for Yadav?

Also read: 'Radhika Yadav was an employee of tennis academy, not its owner' | Exclusive

From what we know so far, the accused shot his daughter three times. Do you think this was an act of rage, or could it fall under the category of honour killing?

This case definitely reflects the deep-rooted stigma in our society. From the available information and the father’s statements, it seems there was some discomfort in the neighborhood regarding Radhika running her own academy. There were also reportedly personal remarks made about her, which may have provoked the father. But even then, nothing justifies such a grave act. Being provoked, even by slurs or social pressure, does not give anyone the right to take a life, let alone your own child’s.

Some are drawing parallels between this case and high-profile ones like the Aarushi Talwar or Sheena Bora murders. Do you see similarities?

Yes, there are some parallels. But unlike those cases, this one is more direct — the accused has confessed. Also, in this case, the mother was reportedly present when the shooting occurred, yet she claims she didn’t hear the gunshots, citing that she had a fever and was in another room. That’s quite difficult to believe. Her silence plays a crucial role, and her testimony — or lack thereof — can significantly impact the trial.

Would this affect how the trial unfolds compared to the other cases?

Absolutely. In the Aarushi and Sheena cases, there were multiple suspects and conflicting narratives, which complicated the investigation. Here, we already have a confession. That narrows the scope, but the trial will still depend on corroborative evidence, including the mother’s potential testimony and the overall family dynamics.

Given that the daughter was shot three times, is there any scope for the father to claim an insanity defence under Section 84 of the IPC?

A defence lawyer might certainly explore that route, arguing the accused was of unsound mind at the time. However, it’s not enough to just claim insanity. It must be proven with solid evidence — medical records, psychiatric evaluations, anything to show the accused lacked the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong. That’s something that will emerge only during trial.

So, an insanity plea doesn’t automatically reduce liability?

Exactly. There are two main types: being legally of unsound mind or suffering from a diagnosed mental illness like bipolar disorder. But for either, the burden of proof is high. The defense must present medical records or expert testimony. The court will assess whether the accused had the cognitive ability to understand his actions. Without that, an insanity plea won’t hold.

Since the father has confessed, does that simplify the case or change its direction significantly?

It does simplify certain aspects, because there’s a clear admission of guilt. That’s a big contrast from the other cases where motive and means had to be established through extensive investigation. But that doesn’t mean the legal process becomes automatic. The court still needs to examine motive, circumstances, and intent before reaching a verdict.

Besides IPC Section 302 for murder, what other legal provisions might apply in this case?

If it’s not classified as murder, the fallback is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. But for that, the defense must build a very strong case, perhaps showing mental instability or sudden provocation. Also, under the new BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), there are sections dealing with mental incapacity. The use of a licensed revolver, the timing, and the setting — all these suggest possible premeditation, which weakens any plea of provocation or insanity.

There were some claims that the father objected to her making social media reels and being tech-savvy. Could that be a factor?

Possibly. These are angles that the investigation needs to uncover. Some reports say she was just an employee, not the owner of the academy, and didn’t have a big social media following. But she could have been seen as challenging societal norms or simply outgrowing her environment. Sometimes, people clash with family due to generational or ideological differences. That may have contributed to the tension.

Is there any chance the father could get bail in such a case?

In murder cases like this, especially where there is a confession, bail is extremely unlikely. For the accused to seek bail, the case would have to be shown as not falling under the “rarest of the rare” doctrine. That’s a very high bar. The court would also consider the family dynamics, the statements from other members, and the overall circumstances. But as of now, bail seems far-fetched.

Could parental pressure or anger be considered as mitigating factors?

Not really. Claiming that you were provoked by neighborhood comments or social pressure doesn’t excuse murder. It doesn’t add up logically or legally. For mitigation, you have to prove a serious mental breakdown or a legally valid defense like insanity. Without that, these emotional arguments don’t hold in court.

Are there past cases where rage was accepted as a legitimate defense?

Yes, the famous Nanavati case is a classic example. The husband shot his wife’s lover in a fit of rage, and the court accepted that as a mitigating factor. But even then, it took a long and thorough legal process to reach that conclusion. Today’s courts are even more rigorous, especially with the evolution of legal standards and societal norms.

So, ultimately, how will the court approach this case?

The court will strictly follow the law. There’s no room for emotional speculation. If the defence presents sufficient evidence, the court will consider it. Otherwise, the accused will be sentenced accordingly. Every case is unique — while previous rulings offer guidance, the outcome depends entirely on the facts, evidence, and how well each side argues their case in court.

(The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)