Niraj Nilesh Prasad was jailed for life for the murder of his wife’s new partner. Photo / George Heard
Niraj Nilesh Prasad was jailed for life for the murder of his wife’s new partner. Photo / George Heard
A jilted husband who murdered his unfaithful wife’s new lover in a savage hammer attack has lost an appeal against his sentence.
Niraj Prasad wife’s infidelity was a direct attack on his “male ego and manhood”, according to a cultural report that was used to try to reduce his jailterm.
The 39-year-old accountant says he had been driven by a deep shame and despair magnified by his Indian culture when he lay in wait before killing Fijian-born Faiz Ali at his Christchurch flat on February 21 last year.
Prasad was found guilty of murder at the High Court in Christchurch in March.
Justice Rob Osborne later sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 18 and a half years.
Prasad challenged the length of his sentence at the Court of Appeal.
However, in a newly-released judgment, appeal judges have thrown out Prasad’s arguments.
“In so far as the [cultural] report also mentions that in the Indian community cases of marital infidelity by a wife are viewed as a direct attack on the male ego and a husband’s manhood, we do not accept that is something that can properly be taken into account as reducing culpability for murder,” it says.
The Court of Appeal also agreed with the Crown that feelings of despair, anger, shame, depression and a sense of hopelessness after a failed marriage are “common among many cultures and not just the Indian community”.
At a hearing in Christchurch last month, his lawyer James Rapley KC argued that cultural factors were in play when Prasad reacted so viciously and violently, and were “causative” of his brutal offending, but not taken into account when he was sentenced.
Faiz Ali. Photo / Supplied
It was a “slightly controversial issue”, Rapley said, but with care and sensitive thought, the issues raised in the cultural report should be taken into account because it helps explains Prasad’s extreme actions and, to some extent, lessens his culpability.
Prasad had been in a relationship for around 18 years when he discovered his wife Nalini Roy – who had converted from Hindi to Christianity - had been having an affair for some time and no longer wanted to be with him.
Ali received 38 wounds in the hammer and knife attack, which caused “plainly visible catastrophic head injuries” and would have continued when he was defenceless, dying and perhaps even dead.
Two were stab wounds, but the rest were blunt force injuries - allegedly from the hammer - which fractured his skull and jaw, and fatally damaged his brain.
The cultural report says Prasad was racked by shame, hopelessness and a consuming despair.
His cultural beliefs put the sanctity of marriage at the forefront of his whole world, the report said, and shame of his wife being unfaithful spread to incorporate his whole family.
And while Rapley accepted that infidelity happens in “all walks of life and cultures”, and that nothing excuses Prasad from killing another man, the cultural report helps explain his actions.
The report says there was “no doubt” Prasad’s cultural background played a role in the way he reacted, Rapley said.
At last month’s hearing, Court of Appeal Justices Christine French, Susan Thomas, and Jillian Mallon appeared to struggle with the idea that shame could excuse such an aggressive, violent response.
“It’s one thing to be deeply ashamed and upset, but how does that translate into an extremely violent and brutal attack?” they asked.
The appeal judges also noted that violent murders by spurned lovers are not unique to any particular culture or background and that they are also seen in “New Zealand European culture”.
Crown prosecutor Barnaby Hawes agreed, adding that feelings of shame and direct attacks on the male ego and manhood should not justify a reduction in sentence.
Prasad also appeared to continue to blame his wife, Hawes said, the cultural report stating that his deep love for her had driven him to this stage.
“We conclude that in all the circumstances the MPI [minimum period of imprisonment] of 18 and a half years was within range and not manifestly excessive,” their final judgment says.
