In cases based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances. Disclosure statements made to police are inadmissible under the Evidence Act, except for portions leading to the discovery of facts. Suspicion cannot override the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial.

J U D G E M E N T

Per Sanjay Parihar-J

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in File Nos.330/B and 57/B arising out of FIR No. 343/2013 registered at Police Station Kulgam for offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B RPC. By virtue of the impugned judgment, both the appellants came to be convicted for the offence u/s 302 RPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. A fine of ₹3,00,000/- was also imposed upon appellant Ali Mohammad Dar, with a default sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment. However, appellant- Muzamilla who was wife of the deceased, no fine was ultimately imposed upon her. The Trial Court, while awarding sentence, also made a reference for confirmation of sentence.

2. Both the appellants have preferred separate appeals which, owing to the commonality of facts and issues involved, have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The conviction and sentence are assailed primarily on the ground that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are founded upon conjectures and surmises and are unsupported by legally admissible evidence. It is contended that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were neither reliable nor of sterling quality and were riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, yet the Trial Court erroneously relied upon such shaky evidence to return a finding of guilt. It is further urged that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and that the findings recorded by the Trial Court run contrary to settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 21.12.2013, Police Station Kulgam received information regarding the suspicious death of Abdul Rashid Dar S/o Haji Nabir Dar R/o Modergam (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). Upon receipt of the information, PW-32 ASI Mohammad Sultan rushed to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased hanging from a tree in an orchard. It was noticed that the private parts of the deceased had been mutilated and that his neck bone appeared to have got fractured because of hanging. After conducting inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., it surfaced that the deceased had been killed by unknown persons and his body was subsequently hung from the tree to create an impression of suicide. Consequently, FIR No. 343/2013 under Section 302 RPC came to be registered and investigation was entrusted to PW-34.

5. During investigation, it allegedly transpired that the wife of the deceased, namely co-appellant Muzamilla, was maintaining illicit relations with appellant Ali Mohammad Dar and that both had conspired to eliminate the deceased. Upon detention and interrogation of the appellants and other suspects, appellant Ali Mohammad Dar allegedly made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had been in an illicit relationship with the co-appellant for a considerable period and that they had jointly planned the murder of the deceased. According to the prosecution, he disclosed that on the date of occurrence, the deceased was administered Anxit-0.5 tablets to render him unconscious, where-after his private parts were squeezed and a