An Indian Army soldier, Navdeep Singh, arrested for killing his wife allegedly over suspicion of paternity of her unborn child was acquitted after 8 years by the Punjab and Haryana high court.
Due to lack of evidence by the prosecution the high court bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice HNS Gillgave the accused a benefit of doubt.
On the night of July 19th2011,the accused and his wife, Harinder Kaur, were on their way to Ropar from Chandigarhwhen they were attacked by some people, Harinder was hit on the head and she died on the spot and Navdeep too had suffered injuries, this was stated by the accused when he was arrested oncharges of murder after his wife was found dead in the car near Ropar. His father was also nominated as accused for destroying murder evidence.
The accused was found guilty of murder and was awardedlife sentence by the Ropar court however his father was acquitted. The former army man approached the high court against the verdict.
The couple had gotten married in 2010 and according to the woman’s family, the accused had doubts over the paternity of the child in Harinder’s womb and had threatened to settle score with her for that. The claimed that the injuries reported on accused were ‘friendly’ ones in order to create false evidence.
“An injury of this nature could well have proved fatal and it is difficult to conceive that anybody would suffer such an injury voluntarily,” the court had stated for the 5 cm long injury on the right side of the scalp which was sutured.
In its judgment, the high court bench, held that the prosecution could not explain the injury caused to Navdeep, which was caused due to a sharp-edged weapon.
The court also queried that why the tuft of hair which was found in the victim’s hand was not sent for forensic examination. The court stated that it could have been a major evidence against the husband if he had committed the crime. A blood-stained pant was also found from the spot which was later discovered, which was of a different waist size and did not belong to the accused.
The court state that, “Thus, what the court is left with now is the case of circumstantial evidence; but even if certain circumstances may point to the guilt of the appellant, the one circumstance of his having received the grievous injuries referred to above, points away from his guilt. Since there is no explanation for the same, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt”
For case specific advice, one can contact best/top/expert Criminal Lawyer Advocate of Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh.
This post is written by Kashish Sandha. For more, dial 99888-17966.