J&K High Court Acquits Murder Convict, Cites Glaring Inconsistencies in Prosecution Case

Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has acquitted a man previously convicted of murdering his wife, citing serious flaws in the prosecution’s case that rendered the evidence unreliable and unworthy of sustaining a conviction.

A division bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma overturned the trial court’s verdict after finding contradictions in key witness testimonies, inconsistencies regarding the alleged weapons used, and unexplained delays in crucial procedures, including a 22-day delay in issuing the post-mortem report, which was controversially conducted in a private house.

The case involved a man accused of brutally assaulting his wife with a stick and a sickle before setting her and her bedding ablaze. The prosecution alleged that the crime was driven by suspicion of an extramarital affair. An FIR was lodged by the deceased’s brother, and the accused was later arrested and charged under Section 302 RPC.

However, the High Court noted significant discrepancies in the timeline of events, the handling of the evidence, and the testimonies of the investigating officer and medical expert.
Particularly troubling, the court said, was the trial court’s failure to address why the accused allegedly made no attempt to rescue his 2½-year-old son from the fire, a lapse the bench described as a “natural and powerful paternal instinct” ignored by the lower court, even invoking Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics to emphasize the gravity of that omission.

The bench ruled that the so-called “sterling” testimony relied upon by the trial court was weakened by contradictions and could not stand on its own. The court also criticized the prosecution’s failure to produce key witnesses without adequate explanation and pointed out contradictions about the time and manner of the accused’s arrest.

Upholding the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered the man’s acquittal, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to justice based on credible and consistent evidence. [KNT]