Jammu And Kashmir High Court Acquits Man Accused Of Killing Wife By Setting Bed Ablaze | Court Questions Why He Did Not Save Son If Present At Scene | Prosecution Failed To Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction of the accused under Section 302 RPC could not be sustained. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and acquitting the accused. It directed that the accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal and connected confirmation reference were accordingly disposed of by the bench with these final directions.
The accused was tried for the murder of his wife, Kanta Devi, under Section 302 RPC. The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of a written report lodged by Des Raj, brother of the deceased, stating that in the early hours of 27.10.2012, while he and his sister were sleeping, the accused attacked the deceased with a wooden staff and sickle, poured kerosene oil from a lamp onto her bedding, and set it ablaze. Des Raj alleged that he managed to escape and inform Ravi Kumar and Rajinder Kumar. By the time they returned, the accused had fled.
A formal FIR was registered at Police Station Basantgarh under Section 302 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. Investigation was entrusted to SI Vikram Kumar, who prepared a site plan, seized material from the scene, recorded statements, and recovered the alleged weapons of offence based on the accused’s disclosure. The post-mortem was conducted at home rather than a health facility, and the report was issued after 22 days.
During trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses including Des Raj as PW-1 and Ravi Kumar as PW-2. The accused denied the charges, claiming false implication, and did not lead defence evidence. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 RPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹6,000, with default imprisonment of six months, subject to High Court confirmation.
The appeal challenged the conviction citing contradictions in witness testimonies, inconsistencies in seizure and recovery, procedural lapses in post-mortem, doubts over motive, and delay in special report dispatch to the Magistrate. The defence pinpointed discrepancies in PW-1 Des Raj’s versions in the FIR and deposition, contradiction regarding whether weapons were seized from the accused or left at the spot, and the improbability of the incident continuing for hours without resistance or intervention despite multiple family members being present nearby.
The State submitted that PW-1 Des Raj’s testimony was of sterling quality, minor contradictions were natural, and the trial court had rightly convicted the accused based on ocular, medical, and recovery evidence. The prosecution argued that motive was established from the accused’s suspicion of the deceased’s alleged extra-marital affairs and his warnings to her.
Justice Shahzad Azeem recorded that there were inherent contradictions and improvements in the testimony of PW-1 Des Raj. He noted that although PW-1 Des Raj stated that burn injuries sustained by the baby of the deceased were mentioned by him in the initial report, this fact did not find mention in the report.
He observed that the initial report, being the immediate and first version of the occurrence, mentioned that the bedding of the deceased was set on fire after pouring kerosene oil from the lamp. However, when PW-1 Des Raj deposed in court, he stated that the accused poured kerosene oil on the deceased near the door and assaulted him.
He recorded that if the first version was taken as true, then the deceased was set on fire while lying on the bed, but if the court deposition was to be believed, she was near the door, creating a contradiction between the two versions.
He stated that it appeared improbable that the deceased was assaulted with two weapons of offence and kerosene oil poured on her simultaneously, particularly when PW-1 Des Raj, who was shown as 17 years old, was also present.
He found the conduct of PW-1 Des Raj doubtful due to his conflicting depositions that the accused did not beat him nor did he speak to the accused, while also deposing that for 2-3 hours when the accused was assaulting the deceased, he was pinned down with a foot.
He recorded that the testimony of PW-1 Des Raj was belied by PW-13 Vikram Kumar, who deposed that when he entered the room, the dead body was lying on the left side, but near the door he found no burn marks or blackened spots.
He noted that the recovery of the weapons of offence was marred with contradictions as PW-4 Ramesh Chander and PW-7 Arif Choudhary gave contradictory statements regarding the presence of blood stains on the sickle and wooden staff.
He stated that the post-mortem was conducted at home rather than at a health facility without plausible justification, and the report was prepared after 22 days without preservation of any rough note. He recorded that the prosecution failed to prove motive, as PW-1 Des Raj and PW-2 Ravi Kumar deposed that the accused and deceased were not fighting, and PW-2 Ravi Kumar stated that the deceased was a chaste lady.
He further noted that the delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate without valid explanation also cast doubt on the prosecution case.
The court directed that for the reasons discussed, it found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was set aside.
It directed that the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 RPC and should be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The court also ordered that the connected confirmation reference was disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate in line
For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate
Case Title: Maan Chand v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Neutral Citation: 2025: JKLHC-JMU:1524-DB
Case Number: CRA No. 9/2017 c/w CONF No. 2/2016
Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma, Justice Shahzad Azeem
