A Delhi court has delivered a crucial verdict convicting a man for the murder of his wife, which took place back in the year 2020. Even though the primary witnesses and family members retracted their initial statements during the judicial proceedings, the court relied heavily on conclusive medical findings and solid circumstantial evidence to establish the crime. The court noted that the accused was present inside the room at the time of the incident and completely failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding how his wife died, thereby cementing the chain of circumstances pointing toward his guilt.
Postmortem Report and Medical Evidence
Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal held Farzuddin alias Nanwa guilty under Section 302 of the IPC in the criminal case registered at the Neb Sarai police station. In an order dated October 13, the court explicitly stated that the circumstances proved on record rule out any possibility of his innocence and establish his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The postmortem report made it clear that the death of Shamina was caused due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation.
Background and Medical Treatment Context
According to the prosecution, the tragic incident occurred on February 4, 2020, when Farzuddin strangled his wife Shamina. The couple had been staying for about a week at Shamina's sister's residence located in Sangam Vihar. Shamina was staying there to undergo medical treatment for her kidney stones.
Witnesses Turning Hostile During Trial
Initially, the entire case heavily relied on the statement of an eyewitness. The complainant Mohammad Tahir, a close relative of the deceased, had earlier informed the police that he personally witnessed the accused sitting on top of Shamina and strangulating her. However, during the course of the trial, Tahir completely refused to support his earlier statement. Alongside him, Shamina's sister, her brother, nephew, and niece also backtracked from the statements they had earlier given to the police.
Circumstantial Evidence Seals the Verdict
The judge acknowledged that other family members were present inside the house and the accused did not have isolated access to the victim. Nevertheless, the court observed that when all circumstances are viewed collectively, the established facts completely eliminate any reasonable possibility of his innocence. The inability of the accused to offer a credible explanation for the unnatural death combined with the medical findings led the court to hold him guilty.
