J&K High Court acquits two in 2013 Kulgam murder case, sets aside life sentence

Srinagar, May 31: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has acquitted two persons convicted in a 2013 murder case from Kulgam, setting aside the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court after finding serious infirmities, contradictions and lack of credible evidence in the prosecution case.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the judgment on May 29, 2026, while hearing appeals filed by Ali Mohammad Dar and Muzamilla against their conviction in FIR No. 343/2013 registered at Police Station Kulgam under Sections 302, 34 and 120-B RPC.
The Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam, had earlier convicted both appellants for murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. A fine of Rs 3 lakh had also been imposed on Ali Mohammad Dar.
In its judgment, the High Court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the homicidal death of the deceased. The court held that the alleged motive, based on claims of an illicit relationship between the accused, was weak, uncertain and largely hearsay in nature.
The Bench noted that witnesses made only vague assertions regarding the alleged relationship and failed to provide any concrete evidence. It also referred to testimony indicating that Ali Mohammad Dar used to visit the deceased’s house to administer injections to Muzamilla during her illness, providing a plausible explanation for his presence there.
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot assume the character of legal proof required for sustaining a conviction in a criminal trial,” the court observed.
The High Court further held that the prosecution case rested substantially on disclosure statements allegedly made by the accused while in police custody, without any independent corroborative evidence. It noted that several prosecution witnesses admitted during cross-examination that investigators had already informed them that the appellants were responsible for the killing.
According to the judgment, such admissions suggested that the investigation had proceeded with a predetermined mindset, thereby affecting the credibility and evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case.
The Bench ruled that disclosure statements and custodial confessions have limited evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless supported by independent evidence.
Finding that the trial court had relied heavily on such statements while overlooking material contradictions, inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution case, the High Court termed the appreciation of evidence by the trial court as perverse and legally unsustainable.
Reiterating the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court held that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to both appellants and ordered their acquittal. It directed that they be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. (KNC)