8 yrs after arrest, Chandigarh-based armyman acquitted of wife’s murder

Accused had told the police that they were on their way to Ropar from Chandigarh on the night of July 19, 2011, when they were attacked by some persons

Eight years after an Indian Army soldier was arrested for killing his wife allegedly over suspicion of paternity of her unborn child, the Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has acquitted him.

HT Image

The HC bench of justice Ajay Tewari and justice HNS Gill gave the accused, Navdeep Singh, a benefit of doubt as the prosecution could not gather enough evidence against him

The woman, Harinder Kaur, was found dead in the car near Ropar. The accused had told the police that they were on their way to Ropar from Chandigarh on the night of July 19, 2011, when they were attacked by some persons. Harinder was hit on the head and she died on the spot. Navdeep too had suffered injuries, however, the next day, he was arrested on charges of murder. Later, his father too was nominated as accused for destruction of evidence of murder.

A Ropar court had found him guilty of murder and awarded him life sentence but his father was acquitted. Against this conviction of April 27, 2015, the former armyman had approached the high court.

As per the woman’s family, the couple had got married in 2010. Accusing Navdeep of murder, the family had alleged that the accused had doubts over the paternity of the child in Harinder’s womb and had threatened to settle score with her for this. As of injuries reported on accused, they had termed them ‘friendly’ ones in order to create false evidence.

The HC bench, in its judgment, observed that the prosecution could not explain the injury caused to Navdeep, which too was caused due to a sharp-edged weapon. “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 said referring to an injury reported on the right side of the scalp which was 5 cm in length and was sutured.

The court also questioned as to why the tuft of hair found in the victim’s hand was not sent for forensic examination. This could have been a clinching evidence against the husband if he had committed the crime, the court stated. A blood-stained pant was recovered from the spot. It later came to light that the pant did not belong to the accused as it was of a different waist size.

“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,” the court said.