Jharkhand HC Overturns Death Sentence in Family Murder Case, Citing “House of Cards” Prosecution

Last Updated on September 30, 2024 by Amit Patra

In a shocking setback for the prosecution in a gruesome family murder case, the Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a person who had been awarded death sentence by a lower court, pointing out glaring defects in investigation and prosecution. The case relating to the alleged murder of a pregnant woman and her 15-month-old child took a dramatic turn when the High Court tore apart the prosecution arguments as if it were a “house of cards.”

A division bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary scrutinised the sentence passed by the trial court sentencing the woman’s husband to death. Scrutinising revealed an alarming lack of evidence and flaws in the prosecution story. The Court also found that essential ingredients of the case, such as demand for dowry, were not correctly articulated much less pursued in the trial.

The High Court based its judgment on the fact that there was no concrete evidence implicating the husband into the crime. The judges said that there were at least two persons with grudges-similar or even greater-those against the deceased: her father-in-law and another woman whose relationship with the family was a source of open conflict. This produced doubt as to the singularity of focus on the husband as the perpetrator.

The court was surprised that the trial court accepted ocular testimony to prove the presence of the husband when the incident happened and asserted electronic evidence presented under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. This slipped through, showing more critical lapses in the kind of evidence presented and admitted in the courts below.

In its withering judgment, the High Court castigated investigation and prosecution for not being able to point to any circumstance that would inculpate the husband conclusively. The bench underlined the seriousness with which the setting aside of a death sentence should be treated and said trial courts have an onerous responsibility to scrutinize such cases more carefully.

The case is a stark reminder of the acute need for investigation and sound evidence in criminal trials, particularly in capital punishment cases. It also begs the question about standards of proof and the responsibility of courts at all levels to ensure that the administration of justice comes from irrefutable evidence, not from circumstantial or inconsistent narratives.