Background and Personal Life
Radhika Yadav, 25, was a familiar name on India’s ITF tennis circuit. Over her short career she logged 36 singles matches and 7 doubles matches, mostly in lower‑tier tournaments. By early 2024 she had stepped away from competition and turned her focus to coaching a small academy she ran out of a rented space in Gurugram. The academy, which attracted a handful of aspiring players, became her primary source of income and her personal brand.
Her father, Deepak Yadav, 49, owned a couple of modest rental properties that supplied most of the family’s earnings. Sources close to the family say Deepak never approved of the tennis venture. Neighbours often joked that the house was “running on her money,” a comment that reportedly bruised Deepak’s ego. Over time, the tension over the academy grew from casual teasing to outright demands for Radhika to shut the business down.
Radhika’s mother, Manju Yadav, and her uncle, Kuldeep Yadav, lived on the same double‑storey house but on separate floors. The family’s daily routine was typical of a middle‑class Gurugram household: mornings spent in the kitchen, afternoons at the office or academy, evenings on the balcony. Yet beneath this ordinary façade, a simmering conflict was building.
Police Investigation and Emerging Questions
On a Thursday morning in early September, the quiet was shattered when gunshots rang out from the kitchen where Radhika was reportedly preparing breakfast. According to the FIR filed by her uncle Kuldeep, the victim was rushed to a private hospital in Sector 56 and was pronounced dead on arrival. Deepak Yadav was immediately taken into custody and, within hours, signed a confession stating he had fired at least five rounds from behind, three of which hit his daughter.
Forensic experts, however, painted a different picture. The post‑mortem report indicated that all bullet trajectories originated from the front of Radhika’s body. This contradiction raised the first red flag for investigators, suggesting either a mistaken confession or an attempt to manipulate evidence.
Timing also became a point of dispute. Police logs initially recorded the shooting at around 2 p.m., yet Kuldeep’s statements placed the incident closer to 10:30 a.m. The gap matters because it affects witness accounts, the sequence of emergency calls, and the window during which the house was allegedly quiet.
Adding to the mystery, Radhika’s iPhone was dispatched to DITECH, Haryana’s Department of Information Technology, for forensic extraction. Preliminary reports say she had deleted all her social‑media accounts just days before the tragedy. Investigators hope that recovered messages, photos, or call logs will reveal whether external threats existed or if the motive lay solely within the family.
The mother’s reaction adds another layer of intrigue. Manju Yadav, present in the house at the time, initially mistook the gunfire for the sound of a pressure cooker exploding. Her delayed realization and subsequent silence have prompted police to request a formal statement, but the family continues to withhold detailed commentary.
Below is a timeline compiled from statements, police records, and media reports:
- 09:00 a.m. – Radhika reportedly begins preparing breakfast in the kitchen.
- 09:30 a.m. – First gunshot heard; family members hear a loud bang.
- 09:35 a.m. – Kuldeep rushes Radhika to his car and drives to Sector 56 hospital.
- 09:50 a.m. – Radhika is declared dead on arrival; Kuldeep files an FIR.
- 10:15 a.m. – Police arrive, take statements, and detain Deepak.
- 12:00 p.m. – Deepak signs a confession claiming he shot from behind.
- 14:00 p.m. – Initial police report lists shooting time as 2 p.m., contradicting earlier accounts.
- 15:30 p.m. – Post‑mortem conducted; results show front‑facing bullet wounds.
- Next day – Radhika’s phone sent to DITECH for data recovery.
The contradictions have led senior police officials, including Station House Officer Inspector Vinod Kumar, to keep the investigation open-ended. They are now focusing on three key avenues:
- Ballistic analysis to match the gun used with the bullet trajectories.
- Digital forensics of the deleted phone data to uncover any recent threats or financial pressures.
- Psychological profiling of Deepak to determine if the confession was coerced, fabricated, or an attempt to shield another party.
Experts point out that family‑based homicides are often more complex than a single‑moment argument. Financial dependence, cultural expectations, and mental health issues can intertwine, creating a volatile environment. In this case, the father’s dependence on his daughter’s academy earnings, coupled with public taunts about money, may have been the spark, but the exact sequence of events remains murky.
The tennis community has responded with a mix of shock and solidarity. Fellow players have posted tributes, highlighting Radhika’s dedication to the sport and her mentorship of young athletes. The incident has also reignited discussions about domestic violence and the pressures faced by women who step outside traditional roles in Indian families.
As the investigation proceeds, the family’s continued silence is a stark reminder that not every detail will emerge from public view. Whether the unanswered questions will ever be resolved depends on the depth of forensic work and the willingness of close relatives to speak openly. For now, the case stands as a painful example of how personal ambition, familial expectations, and societal judgment can converge in tragedy.