12 Years Later, Jammu and Kashmir High Court Acquits Man of Wife’s Murder

JAMMU: In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has acquitted Maan Chand, a resident of Udhampur, who was convicted by a trial court in 2015 for the gruesome murder of his wife, Kanta Devi. The division bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem reversed the life sentence handed down by the Sessions Court, citing a host of procedural lapses, contradictory testimonies, and unreliable evidence.

The case, which dates back to October 27, 2012, alleged that Maan Chand assaulted his wife with a wooden staff and sickle, then set her and her bedding ablaze after dousing them in kerosene. The incident reportedly took place in the dead of night while the deceased’s brother, Des Raj (PW-1), and her two-and-a-half-year-old child were also in the room. Chand was arrested two days later and convicted under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

However, the High Court found that the prosecution had “suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence,” rendering the entire case against the accused “highly doubtful.” It highlighted the following major flaws in the investigation and trial:

The case heavily relied on Des Raj, the deceased’s brother, who claimed to have witnessed the entire crime. But the court pointed out glaring contradictions between his initial police report and his courtroom testimony. For instance, he initially claimed that the deceased was set on fire on her bed, but later testified she was set ablaze near the door. Additionally, he mentioned burn injuries on the child in court, which were absent in the original report.

The court found significant irregularities in the forensic handling of the case. The weapon allegedly used— a sickle— had fingerprints that were deemed “too clear” by the fingerprint expert for a rough surface. Moreover, the post-mortem was conducted not at a medical facility but in a private home, and the report was issued 22 days later without adequate notes or proof of observation.

Further discrepancies were noted in witness testimonies regarding bloodstains on the weapon. Some said they were visible; others, including the forensic expert, denied this. The absence of any incised wounds, despite the use of a sickle, raised further doubt.

The trial court had accepted a motive that Maan Chand suspected his wife of infidelity. However, none of the examined witnesses supported this claim. One even stated the deceased was a “chaste woman” and that the couple had not been seen quarreling.

Though police claimed Chand was arrested on October 29, 2012, multiple testimonies, including that of the deceased’s sister and the accused himself, indicated he was in police custody by the morning of October 27. The court noted that such discrepancies allowed ample time for evidence to be manipulated.

Similarly, the special report of the murder reached the magistrate two days late, a delay the prosecution blamed on holidays. The court rejected this reasoning, citing Supreme Court precedent that mandates prompt filing regardless of weekends.

The bench strongly criticised the trial court for not considering the accused’s statement under Section 342 CrPC, where he denied the charges and explained his early arrest. Citing Supreme Court rulings, the High Court said that ignoring such statements undermines the fairness of the trial.

After examining the contradictions in witness accounts, the unconvincing forensic evidence, and the procedural lapses by investigators, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The life sentence imposed on Maan Chand was quashed, and he was ordered to be released unless required in any other case.