A scientist who brutalised a woman in a sadistic revenge attack and started a new life on the run from the police has been jailed for more than 11 years.
Munnavar Khan, 38, was led to the cells at Bradford Crown Court yesterday six years after ferociously assaulting his victim with a broom handle and vacuum cleaner at his home in Warley Drive, Bradford Moor, on September 15, 2005.
He jumped court bail and fled to the south west of England where he changed his name by Deed Poll, got a job and started a relationship, the court was told.
He was arrested last December and in April a jury convicted him of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent on his victim.
Khan, in white shirt and tie, stood in the dock with his head bowed as Judge Peter Benson told him that the woman feared for five years while he was at large that he could return to assault her again, or worse.
Judge Benson said Khan professed to be sorry for what he did. “That remorse was not reflected in your decision to have a trial and put your victim through a second ordeal at your hands,” he said.
Khan, who also worked as a scientist in Holland, blamed an intruder for attacking the woman. He drank brandy before luring his victim to his home to exact revenge because he wrongly blamed her for getting a man hooked on cocaine.
Judge Benson said: “You attacked her in the most brutal and relentless way.”
Branding the attack savage, ferocious and sadistic, the judge said it left the woman with “severe psychological consequences”. She found it difficult to socialise and had left Bradford.
The judge praised her “great courage” in giving evidence to the jury.
Khan was jailed for 11 years for the attack and nine months on top for the bail act offence.
After the case, the woman’s father said he twice walked past her bed on the emergency hospital ward without recognising her. “Her face was so battered and swollen. When I realised who it was, I collapsed with emotion,” he said.
He told how the attack had left his daughter and her family traumatised. She had postponed her wedding because she did not it to be in same year as the court case.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article