J&K HC acquits man in wife’s homicide, cites flawed probe | India News

SRINAGAR: J&Okay excessive courtroom lately acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his spouse in 2012, citing main flaws in the investigation and granting him advantage of the doubt.The division bench overturned the 2015 conviction by principal periods choose of Udhampur, ruling that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, unreliable proof, and procedural lapses.Maan Chand, a resident of Ramnagar in Jammu, had been convicted below part 302 of the now-repealed Ranbir Penal Code for the homicide of his spouse Kanta Devi on the intervening evening of Oct 26–27 in 2012. Prosecutors claimed he attacked her with a bamboo stick and sickle after objecting to an alleged extra-marital relationship, after which set her and the bedding on hearth utilizing kerosene from a lamp.The bench questioned the credibility of the proof introduced. “There were inconsistencies regarding the type of weapons used, the nature of injuries, and contradictions in recovery of the alleged weapon of offence,” the excessive courtroom stated.Autopsy procedures have been additionally referred to as into query. It was carried out in a personal residence, with conflicting causes supplied by the physician, witnesses, and investigating officer. The physician wasn’t proven the alleged homicide weapon and issued the post-mortem report 22 days after examination. The bench stated he failed to clarify how he remembered particular wound particulars after such a delay.The courtroom flagged inconsistencies in the timeline of Chand’s arrest and discrepancies in witness and police accounts of visits to the crime scene. It additionally stated that no proof was submitted to assist the declare of Kanta Devi’s alleged infidelity — mainstay of the prosecution’s motive narrative.An important side neglected by the trial courtroom, the bench stated, was the presence of the couple’s 2.5-year-old son, who allegedly suffered burns on his again. “No attempt was made to consider why, if the accused was present during the crime, he didn’t rescue his son,” the judges wrote.Quoting Aristotle, the bench remarked: “A father would instinctively risk his life to save his child.” He criticised the trial courtroom for failing to weigh this pure paternal intuition.The bench allowed the attraction, put aside the decrease courtroom’s judgment and acquitted Chand of all costs. “He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case,” the order stated.