Domestic Homicide Review DHR NNC004 - Executive Summary

Executive summary of a Domestic Homicide Review into the circumstances of the death of Aparajitha and her two children in December 2022.

Introduction

The family in this case consist of Aparajitha’s parents who reside in Kottayam in the state of Kerala, on the southeast coast of India, over 3,000 kms from the country’s capital Delhi. The language spoken by the family is Malayalam. The parents are not English speaking and communication with the review has been through a family friend in Northampton, who arranged WhatsApp telephone conversations with Aparajitha’s parents in India, assisted by an English-speaking neighbour.

Aparajitha was 35 years 5 months old when she died. Prakash was 52. Aparajitha was a trained Nurse and had come to the UK under a recruitment scheme. Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust started a programme of International Educated Nurse Recruitment to support the filling of nursing vacancies in September 2019. Funding streams were launched by NHS England and Aparajitha was recruited by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

Upon her arrival in the UK in October 2021, Aparajitha was already married to Prakash. They had two young children. All family members registered with their local GP, (details later in the report) and as the children became of school age they attended their local primary school, (again more details later in the report). One morning in December 2022, work colleagues of Aparajitha telephoned her to confirm arrangements for sharing a lift to work which had been mentioned by Aparajitha the previous evening. Aparajitha did not answer her phone, and the work colleagues managed to speak to her husband, Prakash. He stated that Aparajitha was sick in bed and would not be going to work that day. This being unusual, husbands of the work colleagues visited Aparajitha’s home address, there to find Prakash refusing to allow them into the house. He was pacing and mumbling. He appears intoxicated and accordingly the friends a called the police.

Officers attended and forced entry to the house where Prakash was threatening to harm himself with a knife. Officers tasered him for his own safety. On searching the house, officers found Aparajitha on the floor in her bedroom and the two children on top of a double bed in another bedroom. All had been strangled.

Emergency medical assistance was requested but were unable to save Aparajitha. She was pronounced dead at the scene. The two children were taken to hospital where resuscitation attempts continued but both were pronounced dead at Kettering General Hospital.

Prakash was arrested and charged with the three murders. He appeared before the Crown Court in 2023 and pleaded guilty to all three murders. He was remanded in custody for sentence. Some months later in 2023, Prakash appeared before Northamptonshire Crown Court for sentence. He was sentenced to Life imprisonment on three charges of murder and ordered to serve a minimum of 40 years before being considered for parole.

Summary of events

Background information

Aparajitha was born in Kerala India in 1987. Her parents still live in that area of India. She had one sister. She trained to become a Nurse in Kerala India.

Prakash was also born in Kerala India in 1970. He has five older sisters and is the only male child in the family.

Aparajitha met Prakash, and they married after several years of courting. Prakash states that their meeting was through mistaken text messages. His father expressed concern that he was much older than Aparajitha, but Aparajitha, Prakash says, had no such concerns.

In 2013 Prakash sought employment as a driving instructor in Saudi Arabia. Aparajitha lived with him there. Whilst in Saudi Arabia, Aparajitha became pregnant and returned to her parents in India to have her first child.

In March 2018, Prakash returned to India and Aparajitha had her second child 2 years after her first child.

Aparajitha and Prakash came to England with up to fifty other qualified Nurses and moved into housing provided by a private Landlord in Northamptonshire in October 2021. They were unable to stay in Hospital accommodation because she had her husband with her. For a period of time, they had left the children with their grandparents in India while they settled into life and work in the UK. The children came to the UK in June 2022 and started their education at a local primary school in July of that year.

Aparajitha and the other recruits started a course at the hospital. Initially much of the course was conducted online due to Covid, but the students soon got to meet other students on their cohort when Covid restrictions were lifted.

Five of Aparajitha’s work colleagues have given their views regarding Aparajitha. They describe her as being a well thought of nurse, who was good at her job. She kept herself to herself and didn’t talk much about her family. Although her colleagues were aware that she was married and had children, they state that Aparajitha rarely spoke about her family life. Some of her work colleagues would associate with Aparajitha and Prakash outside of the work environment. They state that Aparajitha and Prakash appeared to be a happy married couple and there was never any suggestion of troubles or issues between them.

Events leading to the time of the deaths

Both children were registered with and attended a local primary school. Both were described as quiet children with a very limited knowledge and ability in the English language.

The eldest child, it is recorded, was brought to school late one morning in October 2022, thereby missing registration and was marked as being absent. The child missed a day in October 2022, according to father, being due to a cold.

Later in 2022, the youngest child was reported to be suffering with a fever and cough and did not attend school. Again, in the same month, the child was absent from school with a headache. The child missed another day from school in 2022, suffering with a fever.

The youngest child attended school, but school staff noticed the child was suffering from fever type symptoms and was sent home. School staff also noticed that the child had red marks on the forehead and under the right eye. It was suspected to be a bruise. On being questioned about the mark, the child claimed that it had happened at home, but because of poor knowledge of the English language the child was unable to expand further on the mark found. It was noticed however, that the child had a high temperature, and was sent home. Her father was called to school to take the child home.

The child was collected from school by Prakash who, on being asked about the mark said it was linked to cultural make up from their Hindu culture. School staff were unable to positively say that the mark was in fact a bruise or indeed, caused by a deliberate action. Prakash was not asked about it further. However, the school decided that it was appropriate to be recorded on their safeguarding system (My Concern), and the action would be to monitor the child.

No referral was made to MASH because the school was of the view that there were no previous safeguarding concerns, and the school did not feel it was clear that there was definitely a bruise, so the decision was made to monitor, not to report. There was also an action plan for the matter to be discussed at their next safeguarding meeting held at the school a few days later, which did not take place as this was the date of the deaths. (It is of interest to note that no bruising was found during the postmortem examination conducted later by the Home Office Forensic Pathologist).

On the day after being sent home, the child did not attend school, and arrangements were made for school personnel to make a home visit two days later.

Aparajitha had, according to her friends, made arrangements with those friends for a lift to work the following day.

On that day, Aparajitha did not turn up for work. No-one knew where she was or why she was not at work. One of her work colleagues tried to call Aparajitha on her mobile phone, but there was no answer. Another of Aparajitha’s friends managed to contact Aparajitha’s husband, Prakash, on his phone and ask where Aparajitha was. He stated that Aparajitha was sick, and she would not be going to work.

A small number of the friend’s husbands attended at Aparajitha’s home address to see what the problem was. Through the lounge window, they saw Prakash, pacing up and down the lounge and mumbling to himself. He would not let the husbands into the house. To them, Prakash appeared intoxicated. Being concerned for the safety of Aparajitha, the children and Prakash one of the husbands called 999 for the police.

Within a very short time, officers attended and called to Prakash to open the door and allow then access to the house. Prakash refused and officers fearing for the safety of the other family members forced entry to the house.

Inside the house they were met with Prakash who had armed himself with a knife. He was shouting for the officers to shoot him and threatening to harm himself with the knife. For their safety and the safety of Prakash, officers Tasered him. He was overpowered and securely detained.

Other officers arrived and made an immediate search of the house. Aparajitha was found on the floor in one bedroom and the two children were found on top of a double bed in another bedroom. All three were unresponsive with serious injuries. The ambulance service was quickly in attendance. Aparajitha was pronounced dead at the scene. Resuscitation attempts were made on the two children as they were transported to Kettering General Hospital. Despite attempts to resuscitate them, they were both pronounced dead at the hospital.

A subsequent Forensic Postmortem conducted by a Home Office Pathologist revealed that Aparajitha and the children had died from fatal strangulation.

Prakash was arrested and interviewed. He was subsequently charged with the three murders and appeared before the Crown Court where he pleaded guilty to all three charges. He was remanded and later sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the three murders. The Judge ruled that he would spend a minimum of 40 years in prison before being considered for parole.

During his police interview, Prakash stated that on the day of the murders, he and Aparajitha had argued about clothing that Aparajitha had prepared for one of the children to attend a party at school. Prakash was of the opinion that the clothing would not be warm enough. He stated that Aparajitha had made an insulting comment about his mother and also a comment about him being the only male child his parents had. These he considered, to be derogatory comments and had ‘tipped him over the edge’. He strangled Aparajitha. Once she had died, his thoughts were that he had to kill the children. He strangled them both.

Also found on Aparajitha’s mobile phone was evidence that he had searched for information regarding cremations. That research was apparently timed after the deaths of his wife and children.

Information from an expert in the Hindu religion and culture

In order to gain perspective on the facts of the case alongside any cultural and religious issues, the Review Chair consulted with an independent Hindu expert, the Secretary of the Birmingham Gujarati Hindu Association, who was prepared to give his professional opinion based on over 40 years’ experience as being Secretary. His view of the circumstances presented, (anonymously), was that for Prakash to infer that his actions were triggered by Aparajitha’s comments about his mother did not reflect at all any cultural or Hindu religious connotations. The expert suggested that with Aparajitha being fully employed as a Nurse and earning a steady wage which would have been more than Prakash was earning as a fast food delivery driver, may have had some bearing on his actions, but whatever the motive for his actions, the expert considered Prakash had no excuse for his criminal actions against his wife and children and saw nothing that Prakash could justify from the culture or religion of Hinduism.

Information gained from Aparajitha’s parents

On several occasions, the report author held conversations with Aparajitha’s parents in India, using WhatsApp and assisted by an interpreter from the village where the parents live.

They describe how, after leaving school, Aparajitha went into nursing local to where they live, and in doing so, she met Prakash who was a driver for the hospital. They courted for a number of years and finally married. Not long after the marriage, Prakash secured a job with an oil company in Saudi Arabia. The couple moved to Saudi Arabia, Prakash employed as a driver and Aparajitha as a Nurse.

After some time in Saudi Arabia, Aparajitha got pregnant. She returned to India to have the child and eventually moved back to Saudi Arabia to be with Prakash. She was soon pregnant again and her parents moved to Saudi Arabia to live with and help Aparajitha and her children. It was while living with Aparajitha, that her mother recalls, Prakash beating Aparajitha and being abusive towards the young children. Aparajitha would ask her mother not to say anything to anyone about what she was witnessing. Aparajitha’s mother described how she could hear Aparajitha crying in her bedroom and the children would also cry when Prakash was “horrible to them”.

Aparajitha applied for a nursing job in the UK and initially Aparajitha and Prakash moved to Kettering without the. They stayed children in India with their grandparents. When Aparajitha’s parent were asked if Aparajitha ever called them from the UK, they answered that Prakash would not let her make the telephone calls.

It has to be accepted that there is no corroboration to the information given by Aparajitha’s family. They are their views.

Information gained from two interviews with Prakash in Prison

Prakash agreed to see the author of the review report a few weeks after he had been sentenced by the Crown Court. He explained the history of him meeting Aparajitha and the birth of the children as set out above.

Prakash detailed the events of the time around the deaths, as him coming home from work on the evening and Aparajitha was preparing some clothing for one of the children to wear the following day at school. Prakash thought the clothing was too light for the child considering the weather and that the child would be cold. An argument stated and he alleges that Aparajitha made the comment about his mother. He lost his temper and strangled her. He then strangled the children.

It is clear that during the interview with the report author, Prakasha was putting the blame for the attack onto Aparajitha, who according to the Prakash, allegedly made a comment about Prakash’s mother and was allegedly seeing another man.

Prakash was seen for a second time once he had been relocated to a second prison in the North of England. He was informed of the facts that Aparajitha’s mother had mentioned about him abusing Aparajitha and being cruel towards his children whilst in Saudi Arabia. He denied those suggestions.

Prakash explained that he had continued with their marriage. He had asked Aparajitha for a divorce, and she had refused because of the shame that would bring on the family.

Prakash gave information family background saying that his father had committed suicide when Prakash was 17 and how he had to look after his mother and 7 sisters until his sisters had grown up and were married. He explained that there were family issues about him being much older that Aparajitha but how his sisters really liked Aparajitha and accepted her into the family.

Prakash described how he was very depressed during the time that he and Aparajitha came to the UK initially without the children. He missed the children so much. He spoke about his ongoing depression and states that had he not been drinking in the night of the murders; his family would still be alive.

It has to be accepted that there is no corroboration to the facts given by Prakash. They are his views.

Issues arising from the review and recommendations

As stated earlier in this Executive Summary, only one agency, Education, was asked to submit an IMR (Independent Management Review), as this was the only agency that had any detailed and significant contact with Aparajitha, Prakash, and the children.

The staff at the school detail their involvement on the day when they were concerned with one of the children who was showing signs of a cold or fever. The child was taken out of the classroom. One member of staff noticed a mark on the forehead and under the eye of the child. The Teaching Assistant initially thought the mark was bruising, and on asking the child where it had happened, the child responded in their limited English, ‘at home’.

The father was sent for to take the child home and on his arrival the School Administrator asked the father about the mark, to which he explained it was a religious mark from makeup. Nothing more at that stage was spoken about with the father, but the Administrator and the Teaching Assistant were concerned enough about the possibility that the mark could have been a bruise, they made an entry onto the safeguarding system, ‘My Concern’.

At the time of this happening, the Safeguarding Lead for the school, the Headmistress, was out of school, on school business. On her return the events of that afternoon were explained, and she agreed with the course of action taken. In addition, the Headmistress instructed that the events should be discussed at the next school Safeguarding meeting to be held a few days later. That meeting never took place because of the deaths of Aparajitha and the children and the arrest on Prakash.

The author of the Education IMR however views the action the school staff took. In her IMR, the author expresses the view that there a number of presenting intersectionality factors which impacted on the school fully escalating their concerns.

The IMR author points out that the Head Mistress, being the Lead Safeguarding Officer for the school was off site and had not left any other qualified Safeguarding person in school. Further, the author identifies that in this case, where English was not the first language of the child nor Prakash, interpreting services, to ensure that full facts about the mark were known, should have been considered and that Prakash should have been questioned further about the mark, rather than accepting the explanation he gave at the time.

The Education IMR author breaks down the IMR into six distinct areas which the author considers were shortcomings in the actions of the school. They are:

• Cultural familiarity
• Language barriers
• School Administrator’s decision with father
• Dedicated Safeguarding Lead not on site
• No previous safeguarding concerns
• Child’s voice and initial clear disclosures.

The Education IMR make the following recommendations:

• The Safeguarding in Education team North has initiated a consultation line to support education practitioners where they need support regarding safeguarding matters - this consultation line does not replace MASH, but instead acts as another layer of safeguarding scrutiny for educational settings
• DSL initial and refresher training to be offered to all education settings within NNC and WNC this training is in collaboration with NCT and MASH education practitioners
• Bespoke cultural awareness training will be offered to education settings from January 2023

From the circumstances of this report, especially concerning the recruitment of staff from abroad there is a lesson that can be learned for both Northamptonshire Children’s Trust and also Northamptonshire NHS Trusts.

International recruitment processes should be reviewed by Human Resources within Northamptonshire NHS Trusts and Northamptonshire Children’s Trust, highlighting areas of concern identified by this case.

Conclusions

The family in this review were only known to one agency, Education. They were registered with the local GP but had no contact of significance with the practice.

The Education in Service IMR looks in depth at the contact the school had with the children and parents and makes recommendations emanating from the youngest child presenting with a mark to the forehead and how that incident was dealt with.

There are no Overview Report recommendations. The only area where recommendations are required has been addressed by the Education IMR author.

There were no concerns identified by any other agency to indicate that what happened could have been prevented.

Last updated 07 March 2025