Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 9: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu on Wednesday dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the Union Territory of J&K challenging a 2010 acquittal order in a wife’s murder case, citing failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar upheld the acquittal of Mohd. Afzal, a resident of Kolsar Kheral, Reasi, who had been charged under Sections 302 and 342 of the Ranbir Penal Code for allegedly murdering his wife, Mumtaz Begum, in June 2008.
According to the prosecution, Mumtaz Begum died under suspicious circumstances on June 26, 2008. Investigators initially suspected that Afzal, who had married the deceased six months prior, doubted her fidelity and allegedly assaulted and confined her, leading to her death. A charge sheet was filed, and trial proceedings commenced in the Sessions Court, Reasi.
However, during the trial, several key prosecution witnesses, including Afzal’s first wife, daughter, and son, turned hostile. Independent witnesses also failed to corroborate the prosecution’s claims. The trial court ultimately acquitted the accused in August 2010.
Challenging the acquittal, the State contended that the trial court had ignored material evidence and laid undue emphasis on minor contradictions.
The Division Bench observed that the trial court’s findings were based on a fair evaluation of evidence. “Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof,” the court stated, adding that even the recovery of alleged weapons—danda and boots—did not conclusively link the accused to the crime.
The Bench noted that the alternative defense version—that the deceased suffered an epileptic seizure and died after falling—was supported by key witnesses and not rebutted by solid prosecution evidence.
“While hearing an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must lean in favor of the view that supports the accused if it is a possible one. There is no perversity in the trial court’s judgment warranting our interference,” the court concluded while dismissing the appeal. (JNF) |
