Conflicting, Implausible Testimony; Shady Post-Mortem: J&K HC Chucks Case Against Murder Convict

The Wire

05-07-2025

Law
Anirudh S. K.
Having found untenable the case against a Jammu man who has spent 12 years in jail, the high court ordered that he be set free.
The high court observed that the trial court's failure to examine the 'deficiencies and flaws' in the prosecution's story led to the flawed conviction of Maan Chand, a resident of Jakhed village, in 2012 for allegedly murdering his wife Kanta Devi over suspicion that she was having an extramarital affair.
'The judgment deprecates the practice adopted by trial judges to give primacy to evidence of witnesses mechanically without evaluating them with surrounding circumstances and more particularly, the normal course of human conduct,' advocate Anmol Sharma, who represented Chand, told The Wire.
The Basantgarh police station in Jammu's Udhampur district claimed to have arrested Chand on October 29, 2012, two days after he was alleged to have committed the crime.
On December 17, 2015, the principal sessions judge in Udhampur convicted him under section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 6,000.
However, the high court on Tuesday (July 1) held that Chand was convicted by the trial court on the basis of 'fragile evidence' despite 'variations, contradictions and discrepancies' in the prosecution's case.
A double bench of the Jammu wing of the high court comprising Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem while granting the benefit of doubt to Chand observed that the trial court's failure to scrutinise the evidence and witness statements 'do not inspire [the court's] confidence'.
The prosecution had relied heavily on the claim that Devi was allegedly involved in an extra-marital relationship, but the court pointed out that no evidence was presented to substantiate that allegation.
'We are unable to concur with the findings of the trial court, particularly when on every point under consideration we have 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,' the bench said.
Quoting Greek philosopher Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics on parents' love for their children, the bench observed that the trial court failed to address the question of why the accused had left his 30-month-old son in the house that he allegedly set on fire on the fateful night.
'The trial court's failure to address this aspect in its judgment overlooks the natural and powerful paternal instinct,' the court said.
In its chargesheet, the police claimed that Devi's brother Des Raj reported to the Basantgarh police station at 6 am on October 27, 2012 that Chand killed his sister with a sickle and a bamboo stick and later set her bedding on fire before escaping.
Chand worked as a labourer in Katra in the adjoining Reasi district and mostly stayed away from home.
Raj alleged that on the night of the incident, Devi had stepped out of their home late at night, which led to an argument between the couple.
On the basis of Raj's statement, a case (FIR No 30/2012) was filed under sections 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code and 4/25 of the Arms Act on October 27, 2012 and investigation was started.
The high court bench observed that the trial court overlooked the contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses, the recovery of the weapon of offence and expert evidence, along with other issues.
While Raj had told the police that Chand set his sister's bedding on fire after their argument turned violent, the high court pointed to his testimony during the trial that the accused poured kerosene on his sister and set her on fire near the door of the room.
The prosecution's case was also marred by discrepancies in the statements of witnesses about the presence of the accused at the house after the murder.
While the initial police report said that Chand had already fled from the house when Raj and two other witnesses, who lived in the same house, reached there, the prosecution told the court that he was present in the house and fled only after seeing the trio.
The court punched holes in the prosecution's story by asking why other family members in the house didn't wake up as the violent crime occurred on the fateful night.
The high court observed that the prosecution's story that the victim's brother was pinned down by the accused with a foot for two to three hours while holding a sickle in one hand, a bamboo stick in another and also setting fire to his wife's bedding while the brother-sister duo made no attempt to resist him doesn't hold water.
'Our [conscience does] not allow us to buy the version of the prosecution witnesses, because if any person would be subjected to such a gruesome assault, then in all probability, he would raise hue and cry, shall struggle and try to escape, particularly when there is also support of real brother [sic],' the court said.
These discrepancies 'cast a doubt on the prosecution story, as it runs in [a] diametrically opposite direction to the natural behaviour,' the court said.
While raising questions on Raj, who was the prosecution's star witness, the court observed that his behaviour was 'doubtful', making the 'manner of commission of crime … highly suspicious'. 'This also casts doubt on the occurrence and the manner of the commission of crime as alleged by the prosecution.'
The court also raised questions about the post-mortem of the deceased, which was conducted in a private residence, while pointing out the conflicting reasons given by the doctor, prosecution witnesses and the investigating officer for the irregular procedure.
The court said that the doctor was never shown the weapon of offence for his opinion on the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased.
'There is nothing on record to show that any attempt has been made in this regard either by the prosecution or by the court, therefore, it may not be wrong to say the genesis of the crime had been suppressed and the prosecution story becomes highly doubtful in view of this omission on the part of the prosecution,' it said.
The court pointed out that Devi's post-mortem report was prepared 22 days after the crime and the doctor failed to explain how he was able to recall the details of multiple wounds of varying dimensions after such a long delay, even though he had not made any notes on the day he examined the body.
The court also raised questions on the prosecution's claim of having found impressions of Chand's fingerprints on the sickle allegedly used in the commission of the crime, noting that it was not possible to find clear fingerprint impressions on a rough weapon like a sickle that was without a handle.
Citing multiple judgments of the Supreme Court, the high court bench said that the prosecution's case was full of 'loopholes', while ordering the authorities to set Chand free.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.