SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has acquitted two persons convicted in the sensational 2013 Kulgam murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence and that the trial court relied excessively on inadmissible disclosure statements recorded in police custody.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Sanjay Parihar set aside the life imprisonment awarded to Ali Mohammad Dar and Mst. Muzamilla by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam, in connection with FIR No. 343/2013 registered at Police Station Kulgam under Sections 302, 34 and 120-B RPC.
The judgment was reserved on April 30, 2026, and pronounced on May 29.
The prosecution case had alleged that Abdul Rashid Dar of Modergam, Kulgam, was murdered by his wife, Muzamilla, and her alleged associate, Ali Mohammad Dar, with whom she was accused of maintaining an illicit relationship. Police had claimed the duo conspired to eliminate Rashid Dar and later hanged his body from a tree in an orchard to project the killing as suicide.
According to the prosecution, the deceased was administered sedatives mixed in milk before being suffocated and later shifted to an orchard at Khirnad, where his body was suspended using a lady’s trouser and dupatta. Police had also alleged mutilation of the deceased’s private parts.
The trial court had convicted both accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. A fine of Rs 3 lakh had additionally been imposed on Ali Mohammad Dar. The sentence was challenged before the High Court through separate criminal appeals.
Senior Advocate S T Hussain, assisted by Advocate Nida Nazir, represented Ali Mohammad Dar, while Muzamilla was represented by Advocates Tahir Ahmad Bhat, Bhat Shafi and Abdul Wakeel Koka. The Union Territory was represented by Additional Advocate General Alla Ud Din Ganai.
The High Court, after examining the evidence of 36 prosecution witnesses, found major inconsistencies in the prosecution case and held that the conviction rested substantially on confessional disclosure statements allegedly made before police officers.
The Bench observed that such statements were legally inadmissible except to the limited extent permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, the court said the practice of recording entire confessional narratives under the guise of disclosure statements “must immediately be stopped.”
The Bench noted that the prosecution had failed to produce direct evidence placing Ali Mohammad Dar inside the deceased’s house on the intervening night of December 20 and 21, 2013. Importantly, the children of the deceased, who were present in the house that night, did not state that they had seen the accused there.
“There is not even an iota of reliable evidence demonstrating that the appellants were seen together at the relevant time or that they were in any manner involved in the alleged commission of the offence,” the court observed.
The judges also found the medical evidence inconsistent with the prosecution theory. While police alleged that sedatives had been administered to the deceased, the viscera examination did not reveal the presence of any sedative or poisonous substance.
Similarly, the prosecution claim of smothering and suffocation was weakened by the testimony of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. The doctor had stated that the case did not show clear signs of smothering and that the cause of death was dislocation of the C1 and C2 vertebrae caused by hanging.
The court further held that the recoveries shown by the prosecution, including a scarf, steel glass and strips of Anxit tablets, did not conclusively establish guilt because the items were recovered from ordinary locations in the house and not from any concealed place exclusively known to the accused.
The Bench also observed that the prosecution failed to firmly establish the alleged motive arising out of an extra-marital relationship. It noted that evidence regarding the alleged relationship was vague and largely hearsay.
The judgment pointed out that one prosecution witness himself admitted that Ali Mohammad Dar used to visit the house because Muzamilla was ill and injections had to be administered to her, thereby providing “an entirely plausible and innocent reason” for his visits.
Rejecting the prosecution reliance on Call Detail Records, the court held that the records at best created suspicion and could not substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
“Suspicion, no matter how grave, strong, or compelling it may appear, can never substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said.
In a significant observation, the Bench held that the investigation appeared to have proceeded with a “predetermined mindset” after several witnesses admitted during cross-examination that police had already informed them about the alleged involvement of the accused.
“The entire case of the prosecution substantially rests upon inculpatory statements allegedly made by the appellants while in police custody, unsupported by any independent corroborative evidence,” the judgment said.
The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary for conviction in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence.
“It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts,” the Bench observed while extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
Allowing both appeals, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence and directed that the accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The criminal reference made by the trial court for confirmation of sentence was also answered accordingly.
