2013 Kulgam Murder Case: J&K HC Overturns Conviction

(MENAFN- Kashmir Observer) Srinagar- The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has set aside the conviction and life sentences of two persons in a 2013 Kulgam murder case, holding that the prosecution evidence was riddled with serious infirmities, material omissions, and inconsistencies that created substantial doubt about the truthfulness and reliability of the police's case.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Sanjay Parihar acquitted Ali Mohammad Dar and Muzamilla, who had been convicted by a trial court for the murder of Abdul Rashid Dar of Modergam, Kulgam. The deceased's body was recovered hanging from a tree in an orchard on December 21, 2013.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to the prosecution, Police Station Kulgam received information on December 21, 2013, about the suspicious death of Abdul Rashid Dar of Modergam. Police found his body hanging from a tree in an orchard, with private parts squeezed and signs of a fractured neck. Following inquest proceedings, investigators concluded that he had been murdered and his body was later hung to make the death appear as a suicide, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 302 RPC.

During investigation, police alleged that the deceased's wife, Muzamilla, and co-accused Ali Mohammad Dar were involved in an illicit relationship and had conspired to kill him. The prosecution claimed that Ali Mohammad Dar disclosed that the deceased was administered Anxit-0.5 tablets to render him unconscious, after which he was suffocated and later hanged from a tree using a lady's trouser and dupatta to stage the incident as a suicide. Subsequently, the police filed charge sheet culminating in their conviction and life imprisonment in July last year.

Setting aside the conviction, the High Court observed that although the deceased had met a homicidal death, the prosecution was duty-bound to prove not only that a murder had occurred but also that the accused were responsible for it through reliable and legally admissible evidence.

“The mere fact that a homicide has occurred does not automatically justify the conviction of the accused unless there exists reliable evidence connecting them with the commission of the offence,” the Bench said.

It found that the prosecution case was built primarily around disclosure statements allegedly made by the accused while in police custody. It held that once the inadmissible confessional portions of those statements were excluded, the remaining evidence failed to form a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the accused.

Read Also J&K HC Upholds Dismissal Of Terror Accused Cop 'FIR Before Offence': J&K HC Flags Lapse In 2019 Arms Smuggling Case

The Court noted several shortcomings in the investigation, including the absence of independent evidence linking the accused to the crime. It observed that the recoveries of a scarf, glass and medicine strips were made from ordinary locations within the house and were not supported by forensic evidence such as fingerprint examination.

The Court also found that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's theory that the deceased had been drugged before being killed. The viscera examination did not detect any sedative substance, while the doctor who conducted the post-mortem ruled out death by smothering and opined that death resulted from dislocation of cervical vertebrae due to hanging.

Significantly, the Court held that there was no evidence placing Ali Mohammad Dar at the deceased's house on the night of the incident. The deceased's children, who were present in the house, did not state that they had seen him there, nor was any“last seen” evidence produced by the prosecution.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Court further held that allegations of an extra-marital relationship and call detail records could at best create suspicion but were insufficient to sustain a conviction. It reiterated the settled legal principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Bench observed that the trial court had been unduly influenced by the disclosure statements without properly appreciating the settled legal principles governing their admissibility and evidentiary value. The Bench said the trial court overlooked material contradictions, inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution case, rendering its findings legally unsustainable.

Reaffirming that the burden of proving guilt always rests upon the prosecution and that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, the Court concluded that the evidence on record suffered from serious infirmities and failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted both duo of all charges and directed their release from custody unless required in any other case.

MENAFN01062026000215011059ID1111195968