SRINAGAR: A local court here on Tuesday convicted a man, his mother, and his brother for murdering his wife by smothering her inside their matrimonial home at Nund-Reshi Colony-B, Bemina, while acquitting two sisters-in-law after granting them the benefit of the doubt. Delivering the verdict, the court of Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar, presided over by Farooq Ahmad Bhat, held the husband Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar, mother-in-law Hafeeza Begum, and brother-in-law Parveez Ahmad Dar alias Bilal guilty under Sections 302 (murder) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The two other accused, sisters-in-law Sumiya and Saika, were acquitted of all charges. Hafeeza Begum, who was out on bail, was immediately taken into custody and remanded to Central Jail Srinagar ahead of the hearing on quantum of sentence scheduled for Wednesday.
The Crime
The case relates to the unnatural death of Tasleema, who was married to Shahnawaz in 2013. On June 27, 2022, Tasleema was found dead under mysterious circumstances in her room on the second storey of the family house in Bemina. Her in-laws claimed she had fallen ill suddenly and died of a cardiac arrest while being brought to JVC Hospital, Bemina.
The parental family soon grew suspicious after spotting visible bruises and injury marks on her body during the ritual bath before her burial. Police Station Batamaloo initially initiated inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Following receipt of the autopsy report that established the death as homicidal, the police registered FIR No. 109 of 2022 under Sections 302, 498-A, 120-B, and 201 of the IPC, subsequently taking all five family members into custody.
Marital Discord
Tasleema’s nine-year-long marriage was plagued by relentless domestic strife. The discord was driven primarily by her inability to bear a child. The prosecution proved through several family witnesses that the in-laws subjected Tasleema to severe mental harassment and taunts, with her mother-in-law deriding her as a Khota Sikka (counterfeit coin). The court record showed that the brother-in-law, Parveez Ahmad Dar, had previously assaulted Tasleema and once tried to burn her using an electric room heater.
Tasleema had repeatedly fled to her parental home in Zainakote, staying there for extensive periods. Tensions also arose over gold ornaments. Shahnawaz had taken two gold bangles from her to purchase a commercial vehicle, but failed to return the proceeds.
Community elders and middlemen intervened repeatedly to avoid a formal divorce. Under an agreement reached around two years prior to the crime, Tasleema returned to Bemina to live with Shahnawaz in a separate room on the second floor. Yet, the accommodation remained accessible to the rest of the household.
Legal Arguments
During the trial, the prosecution was led by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), while Advocate M Abdullah Pandith and Associates appeared for the defence. The APP argued that the accused nursed a deep grudge against Tasleema. He submitted that instead of seeking a formal separation, which would require returning gold and valuables worth Rs 11.50 lakh, the accused conspired to smother her to make it appear as suicide or sudden illness. The APP argued that the deceased died within the exclusive confines of the matrimonial house, shifting the burden of explanation onto the occupants.
Advocate Pandith contended that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial assertions without any independent eyewitness. He highlighted that the call detail records (CDRs) placed on record could not be relied upon because police failed to obtain a mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
The defence counsel further argued that Shahnawaz was on duty at his Power Development Department (PDD) workplace and Parveez was away driving his commercial auto at the material time, meaning the foundational presence for a conspiracy had not been established.
Medical Proof
The bench rejected the defence plea that the victim died a natural death resulting from cardiac failure. Three medical experts who carried out the post-mortem at Government Medical College (GMC) Srinagar, Dr Uzma Buch, Dr Firdous Khan, and Dr Bilal Ahmad Wani, categorically testified before the court. Their findings revealed cyanosed lips, inner lip contusions, lacerations behind the ear, abrasions on the elbows, contusions on the thumbs, and petechial haemorrhages. The forensic analysis excluded poisoning. The medical board formally concluded that death occurred due to asphyxia caused by homicidal smothering.
The court observed: “Therefore from the overall consideration of the evidence of these witnesses and from the circumstances it stands established beyond any shadow of doubt that the death of the deceased has been caused by smothering and the injuries which are found on the body of the deceased were not self-inflicted.”
Court Verdict
Addressing the legal tests of circumstantial evidence, the court held that the accused failed to discharge their statutory burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain what transpired inside the room. The bench observed that crimes within four walls rarely leave direct witnesses, remarking: “No member of the family, even if he is a witness to the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member.” The judge added that courts must be sensitive and avoid letting culprits escape through procedural lapses or technicalities.
The court ruled that the persistent hostility and actions of Hafeeza Begum, Parveez Ahmad Dar, and Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar established an unbroken chain of guilt pointing solely to their culpability. However, the court acquitted them under Section 201 (destruction of evidence) due to lack of evidence regarding the physical tool used for smothering, and also found the cruelty charge under Section 498-A unproven for the period immediately prior to the death.
Extending the benefit of doubt to the two sisters-in-law, Sumiya and Saika, the court discharged their bail bonds, ordered the immediate detention of Hafeeza Begum, and listed the matter for October 14, 2026 to hear arguments on sentencing for the three convicts.
