SRINAGAR: J&K high court recently acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his wife in 2012, citing major flaws in the investigation and granting him benefit of the doubt.
The division bench overturned the 2015 conviction by principal sessions judge of Udhampur, ruling that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, unreliable evidence, and procedural lapses.
Maan Chand, a resident of Ramnagar in Jammu, had been convicted under section 302 of the now-repealed Ranbir Penal Code for the murder of his wife Kanta Devi on the intervening night of Oct 26–27 in 2012. Prosecutors claimed he attacked her with a bamboo stick and sickle after objecting to an alleged extra-marital relationship, and then set her and the bedding on fire using kerosene from a lamp.
The bench questioned the credibility of the evidence presented. “There were inconsistencies regarding the type of weapons used, the nature of injuries, and contradictions in recovery of the alleged weapon of offence,” the high court said.
Autopsy procedures were also called into question. It was conducted in a private residence, with conflicting reasons offered by the doctor, witnesses, and investigating officer. The doctor wasn’t shown the alleged murder weapon and issued the autopsy report 22 days after examination. The bench said he failed to explain how he remembered specific wound details after such a delay.
The court flagged inconsistencies in the timeline of Chand’s arrest and discrepancies in witness and police accounts of visits to the crime scene. It also said that no evidence was submitted to support the claim of Kanta Devi’s alleged infidelity — mainstay of the prosecution’s motive narrative.
A crucial aspect overlooked by the trial court, the bench said, was the presence of the couple’s 2.5-year-old son, who allegedly suffered burns on his back. “No attempt was made to consider why, if the accused was present during the crime, he didn’t rescue his son,” the judges wrote.
Quoting Aristotle, the bench remarked: “A father would instinctively risk his life to save his child.” He criticised the trial court for failing to weigh this natural paternal instinct.
The bench allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s judgment and acquitted Chand of all charges. “He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case,” the order said.
The division bench overturned the 2015 conviction by principal sessions judge of Udhampur, ruling that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, unreliable evidence, and procedural lapses.
Maan Chand, a resident of Ramnagar in Jammu, had been convicted under section 302 of the now-repealed Ranbir Penal Code for the murder of his wife Kanta Devi on the intervening night of Oct 26–27 in 2012. Prosecutors claimed he attacked her with a bamboo stick and sickle after objecting to an alleged extra-marital relationship, and then set her and the bedding on fire using kerosene from a lamp.
The bench questioned the credibility of the evidence presented. “There were inconsistencies regarding the type of weapons used, the nature of injuries, and contradictions in recovery of the alleged weapon of offence,” the high court said.
Autopsy procedures were also called into question. It was conducted in a private residence, with conflicting reasons offered by the doctor, witnesses, and investigating officer. The doctor wasn’t shown the alleged murder weapon and issued the autopsy report 22 days after examination. The bench said he failed to explain how he remembered specific wound details after such a delay.
The court flagged inconsistencies in the timeline of Chand’s arrest and discrepancies in witness and police accounts of visits to the crime scene. It also said that no evidence was submitted to support the claim of Kanta Devi’s alleged infidelity — mainstay of the prosecution’s motive narrative.
A crucial aspect overlooked by the trial court, the bench said, was the presence of the couple’s 2.5-year-old son, who allegedly suffered burns on his back. “No attempt was made to consider why, if the accused was present during the crime, he didn’t rescue his son,” the judges wrote.
Quoting Aristotle, the bench remarked: “A father would instinctively risk his life to save his child.” He criticised the trial court for failing to weigh this natural paternal instinct.
The bench allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s judgment and acquitted Chand of all charges. “He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case,” the order said.
You may also like
Gadkari's mega mobility plan for India: Hyperloop, electric buses, ropeways on fast track
How This National Award Winning Actor Of Oscar-Nominated Indian Film Became An Auto Driver
Mcap Of 6 Top Firms Drops By ₹70,325 Crore, HDFC & ICICI Bank Lead Decline
PM Modi wishes Dalai Lama on birthday
Paris reopens this iconic spot to public after nearly 100 years. Courtesy, Olympics
