The Jammu and Kashmir High Court acquitted Maan Chand, who was earlier convicted by the trial court for allegedly murdering his wife by setting her and her bedding on fire. The division bench comprising Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma highlighted multiple contradictions and lapses in the prosecution's case, ultimately terming the evidence as fragile and unworthy of reliance.
"The trial Court's failure to address this aspect in its judgment overlooks the natural and powerful paternal instinct," the Court observed, quoting Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics to emphasize the innate bond between parent and child.
The accused was previously sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), along with a fine of ₹6,000. The prosecution alleged that the accused, suspecting his wife of an extramarital affair, attacked her with a wooden stick and sickle before setting her on fire using kerosene oil.
However, the High Court raised serious doubts regarding the sequence of events and the credibility of key witnesses. The prime witness, PW-1 Des Raj (the deceased's brother), made conflicting statements both in his initial complaint and during his courtroom testimony, especially regarding the position of the deceased at the time of the fire and the involvement of their 2½-year-old child.
Read also:- POCSO Convict Gets Bail from Allahabad High Court After Marrying Victim and Having a Child
“If any person is attacked in such a brutal manner, especially in the presence of family members, one would expect resistance or at least struggle. That no such resistance occurred is unnatural and casts serious doubt on the prosecution story,” the bench noted.
The Court also found discrepancies in the recovery and handling of the alleged murder weapons. The fingerprint expert admitted that clear fingerprints could not be lifted from the sickle due to its rough surface, contradicting the prosecution’s claim of fingerprint evidence linking the accused to the weapon.
Furthermore, the post-mortem was conducted not at a medical facility but in a private house, allegedly due to public protest. This, coupled with a 22-day delay in issuing the medical report and the absence of expert confirmation linking the injuries to the seized weapons, further weakened the case.
Read also:- “Look for God in justice, not in Judges”: Justice M.M. Sundresh Stresses Judicial Humility
Significant procedural lapses were also highlighted. The accused claimed he was arrested on October 27, while police records showed the arrest on October 29. The prosecution offered no convincing explanation for the two-day delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate.
“The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, which it has clearly failed to do in this case,” the Court stated.
Adding to the irregularities, several key witnesses were either not examined or were dropped by the prosecution without explanation, including a vital eyewitness and the village Chowkidar who was to corroborate the recovery of weapons.
Read also:- Appeals on Service‑Tax Limitation Must Go Straight to Supreme Court, Rules Delhi High Court
Ultimately, the Court held that the trial court had erred in relying heavily on the solitary and inconsistent testimony of PW-1 Des Raj. It concluded that the prosecution suppressed material facts and failed to present a coherent and convincing narrative.
The judgment sets aside the trial court’s conviction and sentence, reinforcing the fundamental principle that no one should be convicted unless guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
“A reasonable and probable story pitted against a vacillating one must raise doubt—of which the accused is entitled to the benefit,” the Court concluded.
Case Title: Maan Chand vs State, 2025
For Petitioner: Advocate Anmol Sharma
For Respondent: AAG Raman Sharma with Advocate Saliqa Sheikh