SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has acquitted Shahjahan Padder alias Shah Lal Padder of all charges in a 15-year-old murder case, setting aside his conviction and life sentence awarded by a Sessions Court in Kulgam. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances and described the trial court’s findings as “perverse” and unsustainable in law.
Allowing the criminal appeal, the Bench quashed the September 30, 2021 judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kulgam, by which the appellant had been convicted under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with additional terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines. As a consequence, the reference made by the trial court for confirmation of sentence was declined, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed that he be relieved of his bail bonds.
The appeal arose from FIR No. 96 of 2010 registered at Police Station Kulgam, relating to the alleged abduction and murder of a man from Mirhama, Kulgam. The prosecution case was that on the evening of April 25, 2010, the deceased had gone with the appellant and did not return, following which his body was recovered the next day from an orchard in village Adijan. The investigation later claimed that the appellant had confessed to killing the deceased with an axe, leading to recoveries of the alleged weapon and other articles. The case was built largely on circumstantial evidence, including the theory that the deceased was “last seen” in the company of the appellant.
Before the High Court, the appellant, represented by Advocate S M Ayoub, challenged the conviction on the ground that it was a case of no evidence and that material witnesses had been deliberately withheld. He pointed to serious contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the wife and mother of the deceased, and highlighted the non-examination of a crucial witness who was admittedly present in the house on the relevant night. The defence also questioned the credibility of the alleged recoveries, noting the absence of forensic linkage between the weapon, the appellant and the deceased, and contradictions regarding blood stains and disclosure statements.
The State, represented by Mohd Younis Hazif, assisting counsel, appearing for Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, defended the trial court judgment. The prosecution argued that the evidence of last seen together was trustworthy, that recoveries made at the instance of the appellant were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and that the trial court had rightly invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act as the appellant failed to explain the circumstances in which the deceased was found dead.
After examining the entire trial record and the testimonies of prosecution and defence witnesses, the Division Bench held that the case rested on shaky circumstantial evidence riddled with inconsistencies. The Court found the “last seen together” theory unreliable due to contradictory statements, unexplained delays, and the non-examination of natural witnesses. It also noted serious infirmities in the alleged recoveries, including the lack of sealing of seized articles, absence of serological matching, and contradictions about the place and manner of recovery. The Bench observed that suspicion, however strong, could not substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act was misplaced in the absence of a proven foundational chain of circumstances.
The Hon’ble Court held that the prosecution had failed to exclude alternative hypotheses and had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitted the appellant. The verdict was pronounced on December 30, 2025, and the judgment was marked as speaking and reportable.
