Unimaginable For A Father Not To Evacuate Son From Fire: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Acquits Man Accused Of Killing Wife By Setting Bedding On Fire

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has acquitted a man who was accused of killing her wife by setting her bedding on fire.

The accused filed an Appeal before the Court, challenging the Judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (RPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 6,000/-.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem observed, “In his work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the deep love parents have for their children, which aligns with the idea that a father would risk his life to save his child: “Parents love their children as themselves, for their issue or like another self, coming from them.” (Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, 1155 a). This quote underscores the intrinsic, self sacrificial bond that makes it nearly unimaginable for a father not to act to evacuate his 2 ½ years old from a fire as an extension of his own being. The trial Courts’ failure to address this aspect in its judgment overlooks the natural and powerful paternal instinct.”

The Bench said that as the prosecution story is not free from reasonable doubt, in that event, as per the settled proposition of law the benefit of doubt belonged to the accused, which should have been granted by the Trial Court.

Advocate Anmol Sharma represented the Appellant/Accused while AAG Raman Sharma represented the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

As per the Complainant (deceased’s brother), in 2012, it was alleged that he and his sister (deceased) were sleeping in a room, when at about 2 a.m., his brother-in-law (accused) who was sleeping in other room, woke up and with a criminal intention to commit murder of the deceased, armed with wooden staff (Dalath) and sickle (Darath), started assaulting her. Allegedly, the accused also pinned the Complainant down with foot and took out kerosene oil from the lamp, and set the bedding of the deceased on fire. On finding opportunity, the Complainant escaped and informed others who were sleeping in their rooms. By the time he accompanied by other had come back, the accused fled from the spot.

Hence, a case was registered against the accused under Section 302 RPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and based on his disclosure statement, the weapon of offence i.e., blood-stained wooden staff and sickle were recovered and seized. During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused and deceased were blessed with a baby who at the time of occurrence was 2.5 years old. As per the prosecution, the accused was suspicious that in his absence, deceased had developed extra-marital relations. The Trial Court convicted the accused and this was under challenge before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above regard, remarked, “Though we are not relying on this point, but same is boggling our mind, therefore, just placing it on record, in that, we are pained to note that during entire gamut of the discussion, the trial Court somewhere missed to take note as to what happened to the little baby who said to have sustained burn injuries on the back, but neither provided medical treatment nor a slight attempt is made that if accused was the author of the crime and was present on the spot why he did not make effort to evacuate his 2 ½ years old son from the raging flames, till the PW-2 Ravi Kumar arrived and evacuated the toddler to his room.”

The Court noted that the justification of the Trial Court that the testimony of Complainant is of sterling nature do not inspire confidence, as it loses sheen and withers away and is overshadowed by doubt and consequently, also renders the prosecution case unworthy of reliance.

“For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to concur with the findings of the trial Court, particularly when on every point under consideration we have noted deficiencies and flaws, which are staring at the heavy burden cast on the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond all shadow of doubt so as to rebut the presumption of innocence, which is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, therefore, accused cannot be sent behind the bars by curtailing his liberty on the basis of such fragile prosecution evidence”, it further said.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the prosecution suffers from the following shortcomings –

a) There is variation in the initial report and its maker.

b) There are contradictions regarding type of weapons of offence used; the manner in which the deceased was assaulted and the nature of injuries caused by such weapons.

c) The recovery of alleged weapon of offence is marred by the discrepancies and contradictions.

d) There is unexplained delay in dispatching the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate.

e) The post-mortem was conducted in the private house, the Doctor, PW-9 and the Investigating Officer, PW-13 have put forth contradictory reasons for the same.

f) The Doctor was not shown the weapon of offence so as to confirm the possibility of nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, with such weapons.

g) Doctor issued the post-mortem report after 22 days and failed to show as on what basis, he prepared the report after such a long gap between the actual conducting of the post-mortem and issuance of the report, particularly how he memorized the alleged multiple wounds of different dimensions.

h) There is a contradiction as to the day and time of arrest of the accused.

i) There are also contradictions as to the day and time of visiting of police officers and expert witnesses to the place of occurrence, which casts a doubt on the veracity of investigation.

j) The prosecution has also withheld the important witnesses PW Rajinder Kumar (eye witness) PW-Mansa Ram (Chowkidar), and PW- Parsu without any plausible reason.

k) Prosecution has attributed specific motive for the crime, but failed to prove it.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Maan Chand v. State (Case Number: CRA No. 9/2017)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Anmol Sharma

Respondent: AAG Raman Sharma and Advocate Saliqa Sheikh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment