Suspicion regarding illicit relations and custodial confessions cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases.

On December 21, 2013, the body of Abdul Rashid Dar was found hanging from a tree in an orchard in Kulgam

Initial inquest proceedings and autopsy suggested homicidal death via neck fracture and scrotal mutilation, leading to FIR No. 343/2013

The prosecution alleged that the deceased’s wife, Muzamila, and her alleged paramour, Ali Mohammad Dar, conspired to kill the deceased by drugging him with "Anxit" tablets before hanging him to simulate suicide

The Trial Court (Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam) convicted both appellants under Section 302/34 and 120-B of the RPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment

The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that it was based on inadmissible confessions and an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence

1. Whether the entire confessional narrative recorded in the disclosure statements of the accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

2. Whether the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to the guilt of the appellants

The court primarily applied Section 302 of the RPC regarding murder and Section 120-B regarding conspiracy

Section 27 of the Evidence Act as an exception to Sections 25 and 26, citing Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka and Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, which hold that only the part of a statement leading "distinctly to the discovery of a fact" is admissible, while confessional narratives are hit by the bar against police-custody confessions.

Regarding circumstantial evidence, the court applied the "five golden principles" (panchsheel) established in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, requiring an unbroken chain of evidence inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.

The High Court found that the Trial Court erroneously relied on the full inculpatory narratives of the appellants' disclosure statements, which are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act

The court observed that the recoveries (scarf, glass, tablets) were made from a non-exclusive, open kitchen area, and the "Anxit" tablets had a plausible innocent explanation (medication for the appellant's father)

The medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's theory: the viscera report showed no sedatives, and the doctor ruled out smothering/asphyxia

Crucially, the "last seen" theory failed as the deceased's children—who were present in the house—never saw appellant Ali Mohammad Dar on the night of the occurrence

The court concluded that once the inadmissible confessions were excluded, the remaining evidence (motive and CDR records) amounted to mere suspicion, which cannot substitute for legal proof

The court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and acquitted both appellants. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith, and the reference for confirmation of the death sentence was answered accordingly