Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Acquits Man Accused Of Killing Wife By Setting Bedding On Fire
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Courtroom has acquitted a person who was accused of killing her spouse by setting her bedding on fireplace.
The accused filed an Attraction earlier than the Courtroom, difficult the Judgment of the Principal Classes Decide, by which he was convicted for the offence below Part 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (RPC) and sentenced to bear rigorous imprisonment for all times together with a high-quality of Rs. 6,000/-.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem noticed, “In his work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the deep love dad and mom have for his or her kids, which aligns with the concept that a father would danger his life to avoid wasting his little one: “Dad and mom love their kids as themselves, for his or her challenge or like one other self, coming from them.” (Nicomachean Ethics, E book VIII, 1155 a). This quote underscores the intrinsic, self sacrificial bond that makes it almost unimaginable for a father to not act to evacuate his 2 ½ years outdated from a fireplace as an extension of his personal being. The trial Courts’ failure to deal with this facet in its judgment overlooks the pure and highly effective paternal intuition.”
The Bench mentioned that because the prosecution story isn’t free from affordable doubt, in that occasion, as per the settled proposition of regulation the advantage of doubt belonged to the accused, which ought to have been granted by the Trial Courtroom.
Advocate Anmol Sharma represented the Appellant/Accused whereas AAG Raman Sharma represented the Respondent/State.
Details of the Case
As per the Complainant (deceased’s brother), in 2012, it was alleged that he and his sister (deceased) have been sleeping in a room, when at about 2 a.m., his brother-in-law (accused) who was sleeping in different room, wakened and with a legal intention to commit homicide of the deceased, armed with wood employees (Dalath) and sickle (Darath), began assaulting her. Allegedly, the accused additionally pinned the Complainant down with foot and took out kerosene oil from the lamp, and set the bedding of the deceased on fireplace. On discovering alternative, the Complainant escaped and knowledgeable others who have been sleeping of their rooms. By the point he accompanied by different had come again, the accused fled from the spot.
Therefore, a case was registered in opposition to the accused below Part 302 RPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and primarily based on his disclosure assertion, the weapon of offence i.e., blood-stained wood employees and sickle have been recovered and seized. Throughout the investigation, it was revealed that the accused and deceased have been blessed with a child who on the time of prevalence was 2.5 years outdated. As per the prosecution, the accused was suspicious that in his absence, deceased had developed extra-marital relations. The Trial Courtroom convicted the accused and this was below problem earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom within the above regard, remarked, “Although we’re not counting on this level, however similar is boggling our thoughts, due to this fact, simply putting it on report, in that, we’re pained to notice that in total gamut of the dialogue, the trial Courtroom someplace missed to take notice as to what occurred to the little child who mentioned to have sustained burn accidents on the again, however neither supplied medical remedy nor a slight try is made that if accused was the creator of the crime and was current on the spot why he didn’t make effort to evacuate his 2 ½ years outdated son from the raging flames, until the PW-2 Ravi Kumar arrived and evacuated the toddler to his room.”
The Courtroom famous that the justification of the Trial Courtroom that the testimony of Complainant is of sterling nature don’t encourage confidence, because it loses sheen and withers away and is overshadowed by doubt and consequently, additionally renders the prosecution case unworthy of reliance.
“For the foregoing causes, we’re unable to concur with the findings of the trial Courtroom, notably when on each level into account we now have famous deficiencies and flaws, that are staring on the heavy burden solid on the prosecution to show the guilt past all shadow of doubt in order to rebut the presumption of innocence, which is a cornerstone of legal jurisprudence, due to this fact, accused can’t be despatched behind the bars by curbing his liberty on the premise of such fragile prosecution proof”, it additional mentioned.
The Courtroom, due to this fact, concluded that the prosecution suffers from the next shortcomings –
a) There’s variation within the preliminary report and its maker.
b) There are contradictions relating to kind of weapons of offence used; the way through which the deceased was assaulted and the character of accidents brought on by such weapons.
c) The restoration of alleged weapon of offence is marred by the discrepancies and contradictions.
d) There’s unexplained delay in dispatching the particular report back to the Illaqa Justice of the Peace.
e) The autopsy was performed within the non-public home, the Physician, PW-9 and the Investigating Officer, PW-13 have put forth contradictory causes for a similar.
f) The Physician was not proven the weapon of offence in order to verify the opportunity of nature of accidents sustained by the deceased, with such weapons.
g) Physician issued the autopsy report after 22 days and failed to point out as on what foundation, he ready the report after such an extended hole between the precise conducting of the autopsy and issuance of the report, notably how he memorized the alleged a number of wounds of various dimensions.
h) There’s a contradiction as to the day and time of arrest of the accused.
i) There are additionally contradictions as to the day and time of visiting of cops and professional witnesses to the place of prevalence, which casts a doubt on the veracity of investigation.
j) The prosecution has additionally withheld the necessary witnesses PW Rajinder Kumar (eye witness) PW-Mansa Ram (Chowkidar), and PW- Parsu with none believable motive.
ok) Prosecution has attributed particular motive for the crime, however did not show it.
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom allowed the Attraction, put aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Trigger Title- Maan Chand v. State (Case Quantity: CRA No. 9/2017)
Look:
Appellant: Advocate Anmol Sharma
Respondent: AAG Raman Sharma and Advocate Saliqa Sheikh.
