The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has acquitted Maan Chand, a resident of Udhampur, who was convicted in 2015 by a trial court for the murder of his wife, Kanta Devi. The division bench, consisting of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, overturned the life sentence, citing significant procedural lapses, contradictory testimonies, and unreliable evidence.
The case revolved around the events of October 27, 2012, when Maan Chand was accused of murdering his wife, Kanta Devi. The prosecution alleged that Maan Chand attacked Kanta Devi with a wooden staff and a sickle, and then set her on fire. The motive was purported to be Maan Chand's suspicion that his wife was having an extramarital affair. The prosecution's case heavily relied on the testimony of the deceased's brother, Des Raj, who claimed to be an eyewitness. The trial court, placing significant weight on Des Raj's testimony, convicted Maan Chand under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹6,000.
However, the High Court found numerous inconsistencies and shortcomings in the prosecution's case. The court highlighted contradictions in Des Raj's initial police report and his testimony in court. There were also conflicting accounts regarding the weapons used, the manner of the assault, and the nature of the injuries. The bench also raised concerns that if the accused was present during the fire, why he did not rescue his 2 1/2 year old son from the flames.
The High Court also pointed out an unexplained delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate and noted that the post-mortem examination was conducted in a private house, with contradictory reasons provided by the doctor and the investigating officer. Furthermore, the weapon of offense was not examined by the medical expert, weakening the link between the injury and the weapon. The post-mortem report was issued after a 22-day delay without any explanation. The court also noted contradictions regarding the date and time of the accused's arrest and visits by police officers to the crime scene. Key witnesses were also not produced without valid reasons.
The High Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to provide a coherent and convincing narrative and had suppressed the genesis of the crime, rendering the case "highly doubtful". The court criticized the trial court for not considering the accused's statement under Section 342 CrPC, where he denied the charges and explained his early arrest. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court stressed the importance of prompt filing of reports, regardless of weekends.
In its final judgment, the High Court stated that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench emphasized that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond any shadow of a doubt. The court concluded that the inconsistencies and flaws in the prosecution's case did not meet this standard. Consequently, the High Court acquitted Maan Chand, set aside the trial court's conviction and sentence, and ordered his immediate release, unless he was required in any other case.
