news details |
|
|
| Man gets life-imprisonment for stabbing, throttling wife to death | | FROM THE COURT | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 17: 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Ranbir Singh Jasrotia has sentenced a man to imprisonment for life for murdering his wife by stabbing her in the abdomen and thereafter throttling her to death, bringing the curtains down on a murder trial that remained pending for nearly 12 years.
The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Ranbir Singh Jasrotia, sentenced convict Sham Lal to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code and also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. In default of payment of the fine, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months.
The case arose out of FIR No. 32/2014 of Police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu, concerning the murder of Sham Lal’s wife Bhuri Bai at Plot No. 14, Sector 5, Channi Himmat. The State was represented by APP Sarfraz Ahmed, while Advocate Ahtsham Hussain Bhat appeared for the accused.
According to the prosecution, the murder took place during the intervening night of March 23 and 24, 2014, inside the room where the family was staying. The prosecution case substantially rested upon the testimony of Anita, daughter of the accused and the deceased, who was around 13-14 years old at the time of the incident.
The court noted that Anita categorically identified Sham Lal as her father and Bhuri Bai as her mother and stated in unequivocal terms that her mother had been killed by her father. She further stated that her two brothers were also present in the room and that a quarrel had taken place between her parents.
The court found her presence inside the room natural and observed that nothing substantial had emerged during cross-examination to suggest why a young daughter would falsely implicate her own father for the murder of her mother.
It further held that conviction can be based upon the testimony of a single eyewitness if the court finds the witness wholly reliable, observing that what matters is the quality of evidence rather than the numerical strength of witnesses.
The daughter's version also received strong corroboration from the medical evidence.
The post-mortem examination revealed multiple injuries on Bhuri Bai, including bruises and abrasions over the neck and a cavity-deep punctured wound in the abdomen which damaged the liver and blood vessels. About two litres of blood with clots was found accumulated in the abdominal cavity.
The medical officer opined that death had occurred due to the cumulative effect of asphyxia caused by throttling and haemorrhagic shock resulting from injury to the liver caused by a sharp-pointed weapon.
While several relatives of the deceased turned hostile during the trial, the court held that their hostility could not demolish the prosecution case as none of them was an eyewitness to the actual assault inside the room.
The court also noticed discrepancies relating to the alleged recovery and description of the weapon of offence and, therefore, declined to place decisive reliance upon that circumstance. However, it held that an imperfectly proved corroborative circumstance could not wipe out otherwise credible direct evidence which stood supported by medical findings.
In a significant observation, the court said that the prosecution is required to establish guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” and not beyond every imaginary or fanciful doubt. It observed that minor discrepancies, fading recollection arising out of an exceptionally prolonged trial or hostility of non-eyewitnesses could not be magnified to eclipse credible direct evidence fully corroborated by objective medical findings.
The court ultimately held that Sham Lal assaulted his wife with a sharp-pointed weapon, causing a penetrating abdominal injury which damaged her liver, and thereafter throttled her, resulting in her death.
“The nature of the assault, the vital parts of the body targeted, the penetrating injury causing massive internal haemorrhage, followed by throttling,” left no reasonable doubt that the acts were intentional and committed with the intention of causing death, the court concluded while convicting him under Section 302 RPC.
During arguments on the quantum of sentence, the prosecution sought the maximum punishment, terming the offence grave and heinous. The defence, however, pleaded for leniency and urged the court not to impose the extreme penalty.
The court observed that the aggravating circumstances were undoubtedly serious since the victim was the wife of the convict, the assault was directed at vital parts of her body and involved two forms of violence — a penetrating injury followed by throttling.
At the same time, the court noted that the record did not disclose any previous conviction against Sham Lal or material showing that he was beyond the possibility of reformation or rehabilitation. It also took note of the exceptionally long duration of the trial, with prosecution evidence taking about 12 years to conclude.
Holding that the case did not fall in the category warranting the extreme penalty of death, the court ruled that the ends of justice would be adequately served by imposing life imprisonment.
Accordingly, Sham Lal was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10,000. The period already spent by him in detention during investigation and trial will be dealt with in accordance with law. The sentence has also been directed to be placed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu for confirmation. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
