Court sets aside 2015 Trial court Judgment after finding discrepancies and flaws in prosecution story
Jammu:The High Court of J&K and Ladakh sets aside life imprisonment of a man in a murder case and directs for his release after finding ‘discrepancies and flaws’ in prosecution story.
The Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma set aside the trial court judgement passed on 17 December,2015 wherein Maan Chand was convicted for killing his wife, Kaanta Devi on 27 October, 2012 on the basis of suspicion of her having extramarital affairs.
It was alleged that the accused killed his wife while she was sleeping with her two and a half -year-old baby by a sharp-edged sickle and bamboo stick before pouring kerosene on her bed and set it on fire.
He was sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs 6000 by trial court, Udhampur.However, he pleaded innocence and appealed before High Court.
The Court while hearing the appeal of the accused noted discrepancies and flaws in prosecution story which heavily casted doubt.
While summing up, the Court said that the prosecution case suffers from variations.
“There are contradictions regarding type of weapons of offence used; the manner in which the deceased was assaulted and the nature of injuries caused by such weapons,” court said.
Court also said there is unexplained delay in dispatching the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and the post-mortem was conducted in the private house, wherein the Doctor and the Investigating Officer have put forth contradictory reasons for the same.
Court noted that the doctor was not shown the weapon of offence so as to confirm the possibility of nature of injuries sustained by the deceased with such weapons.
The court further recorded that the doctor issued the post-mortem report after 22 days and failed to show as on what basis, he prepared the report after such a long gap between the actual conducting of the post-mortem and issuance of the report, particularly how he memorized the alleged multiple wounds of different dimensions.
“There is a contradiction as to the day and time of arrest of the accused and also contradictions regarding visiting of police officers and expert witnesses to the place of occurrence,which casts a doubt on the veracity of investigation,” court stated.
Court also noted that the prosecution has also withheld the important witnesses like Rajinder Kumar (eye witness) Mansa Ram (Chowkidar) without any plausible reason.
The Bench also recorded that they are pained to note that the trial Court somewhere missed to take note as to what happened to the little baby who said to have sustained burn injuries on the back, but neither provided medical treatment nor a slight attempt is made that if accused was the author of the crime and was present on the spot why he did not make effort to evacuate his son from the raging flames, till the witness Ravi Kumar arrived and evacuated the toddler to his room.
In this regard, court said “we are reminded of the great philosopher Aristotle, whose philosophy emphasizes natural human relationship and virtues. In his work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the deep love parents have for their children, which aligns with the idea that a father would risk his life to save his child”.
“Parents love their children as themselves, for their issue or like another self, coming from them,” court extracted from (Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, 1155 a).
Court said this quote underscores the intrinsic, self sacrificial bond that makes it nearly unimaginable for a father not to act to evacuate his little baby from a fire as an extension of his own being.
“The trial Courts’ failure to address this aspect in its judgment overlooks the natural and powerful paternal instinct,” court recorded.
The Bench said in the wake of above-discussed contradictions, discrepancies, conflicting opinion of the experts, etc, the justification of the trial Court that the testimony of deceased’s brother, Des Raj is of sterling nature do not inspire confidence, as it loses sheen and withers away and is overshadowed by doubt and consequently, also renders the prosecution case unworthy of reliance.
The Court recorded that they are are unable to concur with the findings of the trial Court, particularly when on every point under consideration it has noted deficiencies and flaws, which are staring at the heavy burden cast on the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond all shadow of doubt so as to rebut the presumption of innocence, “which is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, therefore, accused cannot be sent behind the bars by curtailing his liberty on the basis of such fragile prosecution evidence,.”
“In view of the aforesaid, while giving benefit of doubt, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case,” court said and directed.
Discover more from Bench&Law
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
