Mother-in-law asks court to spare son-in-law's life
Her granddaughter lost her mother, now not wanting to lose her father, a woman in Can Tho knelt down and begged the court to spare the life of the man who murdered her daughter.
|
Ho at the appeal hearing. Photo:An Binh. |
On June 25, the High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City held an appeal hearing and upheld the death sentence for Nguyen Van Ho (30 years old, in Cai Rang district, Can Tho city) for the crime ofKilling.
According to records, in 2013 Ho married a woman from the same locality. The couple lived in the same house with his wife’s grandmother and had a child together. Due to his gambling addiction, Ho borrowed more than 16 million VND from a man he knew. Later, unable to pay back, he fled.
In August 2017, Ho returned to his hometown and heard that his wife often left home for a few days before returning. He checked his wife's phone and saw messages with his creditor, so he became jealous.
On the afternoon of August 9, 2017, his wife asked him to put their son to sleep so she could go buy medicine, but Ho refused and forbade her from leaving the house. His wife still left, and he stabbed her in the side, breaking the knife. Ho dragged the victim to the kitchen and took another knife to kill her.
Two months later,Can Tho City People's Court sentenced the defendant to death. Ho appealed, asking for a lighter sentence; the victim's family also filed a petition for a reduced sentence for the defendant.
At this trial, the representative of the prosecution agency requested the court to reject the appeal of the defendant and the representative of the victim. When hearing the representative of the People's Procuracy request to uphold the death sentence, Ho's mother-in-law knelt down and begged the court to spare her son-in-law's life. "I don't want my grandchild to lose his mother, and now his father too," she said.
The panel of judges found that the defendant murdered his wife because of a minor, unfounded conflict. The defendant used extremely brutal violence, causing outrage in public opinion... so the court of first instance imposed the maximum sentence as necessary. From that, the appeals court concluded that there was no basis to pardon the defendant from the death penalty.
