Summary
The High Court had acquitted two accused but retained the appellant’s conviction for the kidnapping and murder of two children on circumstantial evidence. The Court found the alleged motive speculative and the last-seen and recovery evidence contradictory. The call records also lacked the required electronic-evidence certificate. It acquitted the appellant and rejected the State’s challenges to the other acquittals.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain proving the appellant’s guilt.
- Whether oral evidence could replace the required certificate for the electronic call records.
Provisions considered
- Sections 65A and 65B, particularly section 65B(4), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Applied Arjun Panditrao to require certification of the call records tendered here; distinguished production and proof of the original device. (¶ 20-21)
Held
- A circumstantial case requires fully established circumstances forming a complete, coherent chain inconsistent with innocence. The record here did not meet that standard. Calls suggesting a close relationship did not establish that the appellant murdered the children to further it; the High Court’s motive inference rested on conjecture. (¶¶ 10-13, 22)
- Material contradictions in the last-seen witnesses’ accounts concerned disclosure, the accused’s presence at the police station, their acquaintance with the complainant and reporting times. The recovery evidence was also inconsistent about which bags were found at the bodies and who supplied the later disclosure. These defects had to be considered together rather than isolating an alleged recovery. The extra-judicial confession evidence was rightly rejected. (¶¶ 14-19, 22)
- Following Arjun Panditrao, the Court held the section 65B(4) certificate a condition of admissibility for the electronic records tendered in this case. Oral testimony could not substitute for it. The quoted rule expressly recognised the different situation where the original device is itself produced and proved by its owner or operator; it did not require certification for every form of original electronic evidence. (¶ 20-21)
Result
The appellant’s appeal allowed and his convictions under sections 302 and 364 IPC set aside. He must be released immediately unless required in another case. The acquittals of the other two accused upheld and the State’s appeals dismissed. No costs.