Summary
The appellant, convicted with the deceased's husband for her murder on circumstantial evidence, appealed through legal aid after long delay. The Supreme Court acquitted him: the recovery of currency notes was doubtful and not linked to the crime, the recovery of a blood-stained shirt was unnatural and the FSL report was worthless for want of an unbroken chain of custody, and the call detail records were inadmissible without a Section 65-B certificate.
Issues
- Whether the appeal of a co-convict should be entertained despite delay and the in limine dismissal of the other convict's SLP, given distinguishing features.
- Whether the recovery of currency notes and of a blood-stained shirt at the appellant's instance, and the FSL report on the shirt, were reliable incriminating circumstances.
- Whether call detail records are admissible without a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act where nodal officers of the service providers testified.
- Whether the circumstances formed a complete chain establishing the appellant's guilt.
Provisions considered
- Section 65-B(4) (Section 63(4), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to admitting electronic records and cannot be replaced by oral evidence. As no certificate was proved, the call detail records were inadmissible, though nodal officers of the service providers had deposed. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52)
- Section 27 (proviso to Section 23, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The recoveries of currency notes and a shirt were said to follow the appellant's disclosure statements; the Court found the money recovery doubtful and unconnected to the crime and the shirt recovery unreliable. (¶¶ 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- Section 106 (Section 109, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The case against the co-convict husband rested partly on Section 106, unlike the appellant's; this distinction was a reason to entertain the appeal. The State's plea that the burden shifted to the appellant to explain the money did not save the conviction once the recovery was found doubtful. (¶¶ 6, 23, 33)
- Sections 302/34 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction of the appellant for murder with common intention and for causing disappearance of evidence was set aside. (¶¶ 3, 55)
Held
- Since the case against the appellant rested only on recoveries and call detail records, unlike that against the co-convict which also relied on Section 106, the Court entertained his legal-aid appeal despite a delay of 2749 days and the dismissal of the co-convict's SLP. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Where the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the five conditions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda must be met: each circumstance fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, excluding every other hypothesis, and forming a complete chain. (¶ 27)
- The recovery of currency notes was clouded by a discrepancy between the amount recorded and the amount counted in court, and mere recovery of money without cogent evidence linking it to the crime is not an incriminating circumstance. (¶¶ 29, 32, 33)
- It was improbable that the appellant, who was at large until his arrest, would carefully keep a blood-stained shirt in an iron box rather than destroy or wash it; the recovery of the shirt was unreliable. (¶ 35)
- To rely on an FSL report the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody of the sealed articles from seizure until they reach the laboratory. The malkhana register contradicted the custodian and the carrier constable about when the articles left the police station, and the reason for their return was unexplained; the chain was broken and the FSL report was worthless. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
- Even a blood-group match between an article recovered at the accused's instance and the deceased is not by itself incriminating without other cogent evidence completing the chain. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47)
- A Section 65-B(4) certificate is mandatory for admitting call detail records; oral evidence cannot substitute for it, so the records here could not be relied on. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52)
- The prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances by cogent and admissible evidence or to form an unbroken chain pointing to the appellant's guilt. (¶¶ 53, 54)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial Court and High Court set aside; appellant acquitted and to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.