Srinagar, Jan 4: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the conviction and life sentence awarded to a Kulgam resident in an alleged murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As per news agency Kashmir News Corner — KNC, A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed the appeal filed by Shahijhahan Padder of Kulgam district and set aside the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, which had convicted him for offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
Padder had challenged the trial court verdict dated September 30, 2021, whereby he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10,000 for murder, ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000 for abduction, and three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000 for causing disappearance of evidence, in connection with FIR No. 96/2010 of Police Station Kulgam.
Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench observed that the conviction recorded by the trial court was “perverse and unsustainable,” and accordingly acquitted the appellant of all charges.
The prosecution case dates back to April 2010, when a woman lodged a complaint at Police Station Kulgam alleging that her husband, who had reportedly gone with the appellant a day earlier, had gone missing following a family dispute. Suspecting abduction, police registered a case under Section 364 RPC and initiated an investigation.
Subsequently, police were informed about the recovery of a body from a garden near village Adijan, which was later identified as that of the missing person. After post-mortem examination, the case was converted into one of homicide with the addition of Section 302 RPC.
During investigation, the appellant and several others were taken into custody. The prosecution claimed that the appellant had confessed to the crime during interrogation and that an axe and a mobile phone were recovered on his disclosure.
However, the High Court noted serious lapses in the investigation. The Investigating Officer, during cross-examination, admitted that there was no substantive evidence against the appellant apart from the alleged disclosure statement. The court also pointed out that crucial witnesses were not examined, alternate suspects were neither properly investigated nor ruled out, and no blood-stained clothes of the accused were seized.
Reiterating settled legal principles, the court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof and that an accused is presumed innocent unless guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench further observed that the explanation offered by the accused remained unchallenged and the investigation was conducted in a cursory and perfunctory manner.
In view of these shortcomings, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered the acquittal of the appellant, setting aside his conviction and sentence. (KNC)
