2019 case: Wife, aide acquitted of labourer’s murder

The Panchkula district court acquitted two murder accused, including the wife of the victim, while stating that the prosecution failed to prove the charges due to the “negligent” and “casual approach” of the investigation officer (IO).

The court of district and sessions judge Ved Parkash Sirohi, while acquitting Shama Parveen a resident of Naraingarh, Ambala, and Jaswinder Singh alias Pata of Khatoli village of Barwala, Panchkula, said, “The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

Victim was stoned to death

The duo was arrested in 2019 for the murder of Islam, a daily wager. His body was found near a hotel in Morni on January 6, 2019, around 6.15 pm. Police had alleged that the victim’s wife, Shama, along with her aide, had stoned Islam to death as he was torturing and forcing her into prosecution. Police had found a motorcycle, without a number plate, at the crime scene. There was also a blood-smeared stone, with a hair strand stuck to it. Two days after the body was discovered, police arrested Shama and subsequently her aide Jaswinder Singh alias Pata was also taken into custody. Both were charged with Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code at Chandimandir police station.

IO failed to collect crucial material evidence: Court

The court, while acquitting the two accused, pointed out that sub-inspector (SI) Partap Singh, the investigating officer, had failed to collect crucial evidence.

“The IO had not collected any tyre-mould impressions from the spot or fingerprints from the motorcycle. It shows the casual approach of the IO as important evidence, which could prove the case, has been left to be collected,” read the court order.

Admittedly, blood of Type A was found on the clothes of the victim as well as the accused. But the aforesaid articles were not subjected to DNA examination.

“Therefore, it cannot be conclusively ascertained that blood of Group-A on the clothes of accused was that of the deceased, unless the DNA thereof is ascertained,” read the order.

A bunch of hair strands was also sent to the forensics lab in Madhuban but after testing, it was only ascertained that the sample was human hair.

The forensics had suggested to the police that if DNA is required, the case may be sent to the DNA division of the forensic headquarters, but that was not done.

The court order read, “Thus, it cannot be said that the hair recovered from the spot belonged to any of the accused, which further proves the negligence of the IO. Had he sent the hair strands recovered from the spot and the clothes of the deceased and accused for DNA comparison to forensics, it would have been very easy to for the court to reach the culprit.”