Conviction Set Aside Where Medical Evidence Contradicts Prosecution Narrative Of Smothering And Sedation: J&K High Court

High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in a significant ruling, set aside the life imprisonment of two individuals accused of murder, observing that a conviction cannot be sustained when the medical evidence directly contradicts the prosecution’s core narrative.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, particularly failing to prove the alleged mode of killing through sedation and smothering.

The case originated from the death of one Abdul Rashid Dar, whose body was found hanging from a tree in an orchard in December 2013. The prosecution alleged that his wife, Muzamilla, and her alleged paramour, Ali Mohammad Dar, had conspired to kill him. According to the charge-sheet, the duo administered sedatives to the deceased, mutilated his private parts, and smothered him to death before hanging the body to simulate a suicide. The Trial Court at Kulgam had initially convicted both appellants under Sections 302 and 120-B of the RPC.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary value of disclosure statements made in police custody and whether the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s theory of sedation and smothering.

Limited Admissibility Of Disclosure Statements Under Section 27 Evidence Act

The Bench observed that the prosecution’s case rested heavily on disclosure statements marked as EXPW-5 and EXPW-5/1, wherein the appellants purportedly confessed to the murder. The Court noted that the law regarding the admissibility of such statements is well-settled through the Supreme Court’s rulings in Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka and Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana.

The Court emphasized 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. It deprecated the practice of recording and relying upon entire confessional narratives under the guise of disclosure statements. The Bench found that the recoveries of a glass, scarf, and medicine strips were made from the open house of the co-appellant and not from concealed places known exclusively to the accused.

"The entire prosecution case substantially revolves around the alleged disclosure statements made by the appellants while in police custody... Such inculpatory narration is barred under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and cannot be read in evidence except to the limited extent of discovery of facts."

Fatal Contradictions Between Medical Findings And Prosecution Theory

Applying the specific focus on the medical evidence, the Court highlighted a glaring mismatch between the ocular version and the forensic findings. While the prosecution claimed the deceased was rendered unconscious using "Anxit" sedatives, the viscera examination report was negative for any poisonous or sedative substance. This discrepancy, the Court noted, struck at the very root of the theory of incapacitation.

Furthermore, the prosecution had alleged that the deceased was killed through smothering and suffocation. However, the medical officer, PW-31 Dr. Rayees Ahmad Halla, categorically stated in his testimony that it was not a case of smothering and that there were minimal features of asphyxia. The doctor opined that the cause of death was the dislocation of C1 and C2 vertebrae due to hanging, which directly undermined the theory of a pre-hanging murder by suffocation.

"Significantly, the medical evidence also fails to support the prosecution version in material particulars... PW-31 Dr. Rayees Ahmad Halla categorically stated that it was not a case of smothering and that there were fewer signs suggestive of asphyxia."

Absence Of 'Last Seen' Evidence And Presence At Crime Scene

The Bench further observed that the prosecution failed to place the appellant Ali Mohammad Dar at the house of the deceased on the night of the occurrence. Natural witnesses, including the children of the deceased (PW-14 and PW-15), did not state that they saw the appellant in their home during the relevant night. Instead, they testified that their father had gone out and did not return.

The Court held that the absence of "last seen" evidence or any testimony placing the appellants together at the time of the crime created a serious dent in the narrative. Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, the Court reiterated that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and must exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt.

Suspicion Cannot Substitute Legal Proof Regardless Of Gravity

Addressing the Call Detail Records (CDR) and the alleged illicit relationship, the Court remarked that even if taken at face value, these elements only gave rise to suspicion. Citing Sheo Shankar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, the Bench noted that while motive is an important link in circumstantial cases, it cannot take the place of substantive proof.

The Court found the evidence regarding the illicit relationship to be largely hearsay and unreliable. It specifically noted the testimony of PW-7, who explained that the appellant Ali Mohammad Dar visited the house because he was required to administer injections to the co-appellant who was ill. This provided a plausible innocent explanation for his visits, further weakening the motive alleged by the state.

"It is a cardinal and deeply entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, no matter how grave, strong, or compelling it may appear, can never substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt."

Perversity In Trial Court’s Appreciation Of Evidence

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court had been overly influenced by the inadmissible disclosure statements and had failed to notice the material contradictions and serious gaps in the case. The Bench held that the appreciation of evidence by the lower court suffered from perversity and misapplication of the settled principles of criminal law.

The Court maintained that the burden of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt rests solely on the prosecution and never shifts. Since the evidence on record gave rise to a view favourable to the accused, the benefit of doubt had to be extended to the appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered the immediate release of the appellants.

Date of Decision: 29 May 2026