SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has acquitted Maan Chand, a resident of Morha Baggar in Udhampur district, in a 2012 murder case involving the death of his wife, Kanta Devi. The acquittal comes nearly a decade after a trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for allegedly beating his wife to death and setting her on fire.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem set aside the conviction after finding major inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, discrepancies in evidence, and procedural lapses in investigation and trial.
The case was registered following a written complaint by Des Raj, brother of the deceased, who alleged that in the early hours of October 27, 2012, Maan Chand assaulted his wife with a wooden staff and a sickle, poured kerosene over her, and set her bedding ablaze while she slept. According to the FIR, Des Raj escaped and informed other family members, and by the time they returned, the accused had fled. Maan Chand was arrested and charged under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code and other provisions of law.
The High Court, while adjudicating the appeal and confirmation reference, found serious contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses. PW-1 Des Raj, the star witness and brother of the deceased, altered his version of the events multiple times. In the initial report, he claimed the bedding of the deceased was set on fire, while in court he stated that kerosene was poured on the deceased near the door and then set ablaze. The court noted that such contradictions created doubt about the very manner in which the crime was committed. Furthermore, there were inconsistencies about whether the accused left the weapons at the scene or fled with them.
The judges questioned the plausibility of a single person assaulting the deceased with two weapons, setting her on fire, and simultaneously pinning down another adult male witness for nearly three hours without alerting other family members sleeping in the same house. The court found it highly improbable that no one heard the commotion or intervened, given that several family members lived under the same roof.
The recovery of the alleged murder weapons, the sickle and wooden staff, was also found to be flawed. Fingerprints allegedly lifted from the sickle were deemed suspicious after the expert admitted that clear prints could not have been obtained from such a rough surface. The court also noted discrepancies between what was recovered and what was presented during trial. The finger print expert’s testimony was in direct contradiction with other recovery witnesses, adding to the doubt.
Another serious lapse was the delay and manner in which the post-mortem was conducted. The autopsy was performed not in a hospital but at the family residence, and the report was issued after a delay of 22 days. The court noted that the investigating officer and the doctor gave contradictory reasons for not shifting the body to a hospital. Moreover, the doctor failed to produce any contemporaneous notes or records made during the autopsy to justify the detailed injury descriptions included in the report weeks later. Notably, although the sickle was said to be a sharp-edged weapon, no incised or stab wounds were noted in the post-mortem findings.
The High Court also found that key witnesses, including Rajinder Kumar, an alleged eyewitness, and Mansa Ram, who attested the weapon recovery, were dropped by the prosecution without any justification. This, the court said, pointed to deliberate suppression of potentially material testimony. In addition, the alleged motive behind the murder, an extra-marital affair, was found unsubstantiated. The brother of the deceased as well as other family members denied any such quarrel between the couple, undermining the prosecution’s narrative.
The court was also critical of the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. The special report, which should have been promptly dispatched, was received only on October 29, 2012, two days after the incident. The trial court had justified the delay citing weekend holidays, but the High Court rejected this reasoning, citing Supreme Court precedent which mandates prompt communication to the Magistrate regardless of holidays.
Significantly, the trial court was found to have ignored the accused’s version under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which he claimed that he was arrested on October 27 and that his fingerprints were forcibly taken at the police post. The High Court observed that the accused’s version, supported by witness testimony, was not adequately considered, which violated his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was riddled with improvements, inconsistencies, and contradictions. The conduct of the post-mortem, the questionable recovery of weapons, the failure to examine crucial witnesses, the delayed communication of the FIR, and the failure to establish motive collectively undermined the integrity of the case.
In setting aside the conviction, the High Court ruled that the trial court had erred in relying heavily on the testimony of a single, unreliable witness, while ignoring glaring defects in the prosecution’s case. The court ordered that Maan Chand be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.
