No Complaints of Cruelty During 30-Year Marriage, No Incriminating Statement to Inspire Confidence: J&K High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal in Abetment Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Akram Chowdhary held that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court did not warrant interference, citing lack of sufficient and reliable evidence to sustain a conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused, holding that the findings of the trial court were well-reasoned and legally sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The criminal acquittal appeal arose from a challenge by the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now Union Territory) to the judgment dated 9 December 2013 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramban. In that judgment, the trial court acquitted the respondent of offences under Sections 306 and 498-A RPC. The criminal case had originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Ramban (FIR No. 94/2009), based on a written complaint dated 26 June 2009 by the father of the deceased, Rozina Begum.
According to the complaint, the deceased had been married to the respondent for nearly thirty years. It was alleged that she had been subjected to sustained cruelty by the respondent, including physical beatings, leading to her suicide on 25 June 2009 by jumping into the Chenab River from the Gugwal Bridge. Her body was reportedly recovered three months later from the Salal Project Dam in Reasi, and a post-mortem was conducted at District Hospital, Reasi on 1 October 2009.
After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the respondent under Section 306 RPC, which was later amended to include Section 498-A. The trial court framed charges accordingly on 16 August 2010. The prosecution produced eight witnesses in support of its case, including the complainant Haider Ali (father of the deceased), two sons of the deceased, and several others including medical and independent witnesses.
However, the trial court found the prosecution evidence inadequate to support the charges. Many key witnesses were declared hostile, and the testimonies of others were found to be hearsay or based on conjecture. For instance, the complainant and other family members, including PW-11 Muzaffar Ali (brother of the deceased), were categorized by the trial court as hearsay witnesses. Their depositions were based on assumptions rather than direct knowledge of events.
Notably, the two sons of the deceased—Arif Ali and Abbas Ali—categorically denied any claims of mistreatment or cruelty by the accused. They refuted allegations that their mother had been harassed or beaten by the accused. Both were declared hostile by the prosecution. Abbas Ali even deposed that the second child was born after the accused’s second marriage, indicating continued cohabitation.
Independent witnesses, including Inshar Ali and Khadka Bahadur, also resiled from earlier depositions and denied knowledge of any alleged acts of cruelty or instigation. These contradictions undermined the prosecution’s case.
It emerged during the trial that the deceased had continued to reside with the accused and his second wife for over a decade before the incident, without any documented complaints or reports of abuse. This fact was considered significant by the trial court in assessing the credibility of the prosecution’s version.
The defence, for its part, examined one witness, Dr. Saifudin Khan, who supported the respondent’s position. The trial court, finding the evidence insufficient to establish abetment of suicide or cruelty, acquitted the respondent.
The State appealed this acquittal, contending that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, and erred in discarding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It argued that the material on record, including both oral and documentary evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt.
In response, counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial court had conducted a thorough assessment of the evidence and rightly found it lacking in credibility and legal sufficiency. It was contended that the prosecution had failed to establish any direct link between the respondent and the alleged suicide, and that no instigating act could be attributed to him.
The High Court recorded that “PWs Arif Ali and Abbas Ali, sons of the deceased and accused categorically refuted the allegations made in the chargesheet that the deceased was instigated to commit suicide as she was physically and mentally tortured by the accused after second marriage and both of them were declared hostile by the prosecution and on cross-examination they denied that the deceased and the accused ever quarreled prior to the occurrence.”
On the reliability of key witnesses, the Court stated, “Father and brother of the deceased, who have been cited as witnesses, were found by the trial court as hearsay witnesses as their depositions were based on hypothesis.”
The Court also noted that “The two independent witnesses namely Inshar Ali and Khadka Bahadur were also declared hostile, as both of them resiled from their earlier depositions but nothing incriminating could be extracted despite subjecting them to cross-examination.”
With respect to the absence of motive or sustained cruelty, the Court stated, “It was clear from the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased and the accused were married for about thirty years and even after the second marriage, the deceased had been living with the accused and the second wife for last 12 years and there being no complaint lodged in those long years with regard to any torture etc. by the respondent-accused.”
On the broader evidentiary record, the Court recorded, “Also there being no incriminating statement made by any of the witnesses that the deceased was instigated to commit suicide due to continuous harassment and torture by the respondent did not inspire confidence.”
Having considered the evidence and rival submissions, the High Court concluded that no interference was warranted in the trial court’s decision. The Court held: “Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, this court is of the considered opinion that impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this court which is hereby upheld.”
It further directed: “Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, Government Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
Case Title: State of J&K v. Ishtiyaq Ali
Case Number: CRAA No. 155/2014
Bench: Justice Mohammed Akram Chowdhary
[Read/Download order]
