J&K High Court Acquits Two in Kulgam Murder Case, Rejects Conviction Built on Police Custody Disclosure Statements

A Division Bench at Srinagar set aside life sentences under Section 302 RPC, finding the entire prosecution case rested on inadmissible confessional statements unsupported by independent evidence.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has acquitted Ali Mohammad Dar and his co-accused Muzamila of murder charges arising from the death of Abdul Rashid Dar in Kulgam district in December 2013. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, in a judgment pronounced on 29 May 2026, set aside the conviction and life sentences imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam. The bench found that the prosecution had built its case almost entirely on disclosure statements made by the appellants while in police custody — statements that are inadmissible as confessions under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and admissible only to the narrow extent permitted by Section 27. With that foundation removed, the remaining circumstantial evidence could not form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

The Murder Case Before the Sessions Court

On 21 December 2013, Police Station Kulgam received information about the suspicious death of Abdul Rashid Dar of Modergam. ASI Mohammad Sultan (PW-32) reached the spot and found the body hanging from a tree in an orchard at Khirnad. The private parts of the deceased had been mutilated and his neck bone appeared fractured. Inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. led the police to conclude that the deceased had been killed and the body subsequently hung to simulate suicide. FIR No. 343/2013 under Section 302 RPC was registered.

During investigation, the police alleged that Muzamila — the wife of the deceased — was maintaining an illicit relationship with Ali Mohammad Dar, a neighbour, and that both had conspired to eliminate the deceased. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of 20/21 December 2013, the deceased was administered Anxit-0.5 tablets dissolved in milk to render him unconscious. He was then suffocated, his private parts were mutilated, and his body was carried to a nearby orchard and suspended from a tree using a lady's trouser and dupatta to give the appearance of suicide.

Both appellants were charge-sheeted on 20 February 2014 for offences under Sections 302/34 RPC and 120-B RPC. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined thirty-six witnesses before the Trial Court. The defence examined one witness, DW-1 Tufail Ahmad Shah. The Trial Court convicted both appellants under Section 302 RPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. A fine of Rs 3,00,000 with a default sentence of one year's simple imprisonment was imposed on Ali Mohammad Dar. No fine was imposed on Muzamila. The Trial Court simultaneously made a reference for confirmation of sentence, which was clubbed with the two criminal appeals before the High Court.

What the Prosecution Evidence Actually Showed

The prosecution's case rested on four main pillars: the disclosure statements of the appellants (EXPW-5 and EXPW-5/1), recoveries made pursuant to those statements, medical evidence, and call detail records.

PW-2 Ghulam Mohammad Wani, the Numberdar of the locality, stated that Ali Mohammad Dar made a disclosure statement in his presence admitting the illicit relationship and the conspiracy. PW-3 Abdul Hamid Wani, though a signatory to the disclosure memo, admitted during cross-examination that the police had already told him about the appellants' involvement before he signed. PW-5 Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Padder, the Sarpanch, admitted that the disclosure statement EXPW-5 was not recorded in his presence, nor in the presence of PW-6 or PW-2. He further stated that he had initially refused to sign and agreed only after being permitted to question the appellant.

PW-29 Head Constable Mst. Maryam stated that Muzamila's disclosure statement was recorded fifteen days after the occurrence and that the senior investigating officer, DySP Shabir Ahmad (PW-34), was not present at the time of recording.

The recoveries — a black dupatta, a steel glass, a Nokia mobile phone, and a strip of Anxit-0.5 tablets — were made from the house of Muzamila. No fingerprints were lifted from the glass, and no forensic examination was conducted on it. The Anxit tablets had been obtained by Ali Mohammad Dar from PW-16 Chaman Lal, who worked in the Health Department. Chaman Lal stated that the tablets were procured for Ali Mohammad Dar's mentally ill father, who used to wander away at night.

The medical evidence of PW-31 Dr. Rayees Ahmad Halla showed dislocation of C1 and C2 vertebrae and ligature marks around the neck, along with injuries on the scrotum. However, Dr. Halla categorically stated that it was not a case of smothering and that there were minimal features of asphyxia. Viscera examination did not reveal the presence of any sedative or poisonous substance in the body of the deceased.

PW-14 Khalid Rashid Dar and PW-15 Uzma Rashid, the son and daughter of the deceased who were present in the house that night, stated that their father had gone out and did not return. They slept together in the kitchen that night and learnt of the body only the next morning. Neither child stated that they had seen Ali Mohammad Dar in the house on the night of the occurrence.

Why the Disclosure Statements Could Not Sustain the Conviction

The Division Bench examined the legal admissibility of the disclosure statements at length. The bench applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2023 Cr.L.J. SC 183, which deprecated the practice of recording entire confessional narratives under the guise of disclosure statements and held that only the portion of a statement which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The bench also relied on Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2015 SCW 3474, which reiterated that Section 27 is merely an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and permits admissibility only to the extent that the information supplied leads distinctly to the discovery of a fact. Any confessional or inculpatory part of the statement remains inadmissible.

Applying these principles, the bench held that the narration allegedly made by the appellants regarding their illicit relationship, the conspiracy, the administration of sedatives, and the manner of commission of the offence was clearly confessional in character. Such inculpatory narration, made while in police custody, was barred under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and could not be read in evidence except to the limited extent of discovery of facts under Section 27.

Once the confessional portions were excluded, the recoveries themselves offered little support. The articles were recovered from the house of Muzamila — not from any concealed or exclusive location known only to the appellants. No forensic examination was conducted on the glass. The Anxit tablets had an innocent explanation: they had been procured for Ali Mohammad Dar's mentally ill father. The recovery memos did not clearly indicate the exact place of concealment or the manner in which the articles were discovered pursuant to the exclusive knowledge of the accused.

Gaps in the Circumstantial Chain

The bench examined whether the remaining circumstances, after excluding the inadmissible confessional portions, could form a complete and unbroken chain. It concluded they could not.

There was no direct evidence placing Ali Mohammad Dar in the house of the deceased on the night of the occurrence. The children of the deceased, who were natural witnesses present in the house, did not state that they had seen him there. The bench observed that there was not an iota of evidence that on the night of 20/21 December 2013 the appellants were seen around or near the place from where the body was recovered.

The prosecution also failed to establish any “last seen” circumstance against Ali Mohammad Dar. The bench noted that had he visited the house during the night, the natural witnesses present therein would reasonably have noticed and disclosed his presence.

The call detail records, even taken at their highest value, gave rise only to suspicion about the conduct and movements of the appellants. The bench applied the Constitution Bench ruling in Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29, which requires that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and must exclude every other hypothesis. The chain in the present case was not complete.

On motive, the bench relied on Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1403, which holds that proof of motive, while significant in circumstantial cases, can never substitute substantive proof. The evidence of an illicit relationship was largely hearsay. PW-7 Abdul Salam Dar's own testimony revealed that Ali Mohammad Dar visited the house of the deceased because Muzamila had fallen ill and required injections — an entirely plausible and innocent explanation for his visits.

The bench also noted a significant investigative flaw: several witnesses associated with the disclosure statements admitted during cross-examination that the investigating agency had already told them that the appellants were responsible for the killing before they signed the memos. This indicated that the investigation had proceeded with a predetermined mindset and that the witnesses had been influenced by the version supplied by the police.

The Trial Court's Error

The bench found that the Trial Court had been greatly influenced by the disclosure statements without properly appreciating the settled legal principles governing their admissibility and evidentiary worth. The Trial Court had failed to notice material contradictions, inconsistencies, and serious gaps in the prosecution case. The bench held that the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court suffered from perversity and misapplication of settled principles of criminal law.

The bench also pointed to the uncertainty surrounding the very presence of the deceased at his home on the date and time of the alleged occurrence. Once the prosecution failed to establish this foundational fact with certainty, the entire theory that the appellants administered sedatives, rendered the deceased immobile, and caused his death in the manner projected in the charge-sheet became highly improbable and unsupported by convincing evidence.

The bench acknowledged that the deceased had met a homicidal death. However, it held that the mere fact of homicide does not justify conviction unless reliable evidence connects the accused to the commission of the offence. The prosecution was required to prove not only that the death was homicidal but also that it was the appellants, and none else, who caused it. That burden had not been discharged.

Order

The Division Bench set aside the conviction and sentence of both appellants. Ali Mohammad Dar and Muzamila were acquitted of all charges framed against them. The bench directed that if either appellant was in custody, they shall be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Trial Court for compliance. The reference for confirmation of sentence was answered accordingly.