Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Requirement of Complete Chain of Circumstances — Failure of Prosecution Case — Acquittal
Penal Code / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — Sections 302/34 IPC [103(1)/3(5) BNS] — Section 201 IPC [Section 238 BNS] — Murder — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence — Sustainability.
Held, where prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be fully established, conclusive in nature, and must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused — Failure to prove any link in the chain is fatal to prosecution. The governing principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reiterated. (Paras 27, 53)
Where the alleged circumstances relied upon by prosecution, namely recovery of currency notes, recovery of blood-stained shirt, and call detail records, were found unreliable and inadmissible, conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 26, 53-55)
Conviction and sentence set aside — Accused acquitted. (Paras 55-56)
Recovery Evidence — Section 27 Evidence Act — Currency Notes — Doubtful Recovery — No Nexus with Crime
Recovery of currency notes allegedly received by accused for committing murder held not reliable where discrepancy existed regarding the exact amount recovered (₹46,000 in seizure memo but ₹46,145 counted in court). (Paras 29-32)
Further held, mere recovery of currency notes without proof of nexus with the crime cannot constitute an incriminating circumstance in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. (Para 33)
Such recovery wrongly treated as incriminating by trial court. (Para 33)
Recovery of Blood-Stained Article — FSL Report — Chain of Custody — Failure of Link Evidence
Recovery of a blood-stained shirt allegedly worn by accused at the time of the incident held highly doubtful where the circumstances of concealment appeared improbable and unnatural. (Paras 34-35)
Forensic evidence becomes admissible only when prosecution establishes complete chain of custody of seized articles from the time of seizure till examination at FSL. (Para 36)
Where material discrepancies existed in malkhana records and testimony of witnesses regarding date of dispatch and handling of samples, chain of custody stood broken, rendering FSL report unreliable. (Paras 37-42)
Held, breach in chain of custody renders FSL report a worthless piece of evidence. (Para 44)
Even otherwise, mere matching of blood group on recovered article with that of deceased is insufficient to establish guilt in absence of other corroborative circumstances. (Paras 45-46)
Electronic Evidence — Call Detail Records — Mandatory Certificate — Section 65-B Evidence Act / Section 63 BSA
Electronic evidence in the form of call detail records is inadmissible unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. (Paras 49-52)
Requirement of such certificate is mandatory and a condition precedent for admissibility, as reiterated in:
-
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
-
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal. (Paras 50-51)
In absence of the mandatory certificate, call detail records cannot be relied upon even if service provider employees were examined. (Para 52)
Circumstantial Evidence — Failure to Establish Unbroken Chain — Benefit of Doubt
Where all three alleged circumstances (recovery of money, recovery of shirt, and CDRs) were either unreliable or inadmissible, prosecution failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt. (Paras 53-54)
Consequently, conviction recorded by trial court and affirmed by High Court cannot stand. (Paras 54-55)
Result
Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (Paras 55-56)
