Conviction Set Aside Where CDRs Were Inadmissible and Chain of Custody Broke; Accused Acquitted for Lack of Complete Circumstances

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N. V. Anjaria heard an appeal by Pooranmal against his conviction for the murder of Aruna and related offences, arising from a Sessions trial and an order of the Rajasthan High Court. The appeal challenged reliance on recoveries, a forensic report and call detail records (CDRs), and raised the contention that the prosecution’s case rested on conjecture and an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the concurrent convictions and sentences, and acquitted Pooranmal. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of incriminating circumstances and that key pieces of evidence were either unreliable or inadmissible. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the guilt of the appellant-Pooranmal. Neither were the so-called incriminating circumstances proved by cogent and admissible evidence, nor do they form an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the appellant-Pooranmal.” The Court further emphasised the mandatory statutory requirement for electronic records, noting that “In the absence of the certificate, mandatorily required under Section 65‑B of the Evidence Act ..., the call detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to support the prosecution’s case.”

Background

The prosecution case was that Pooranmal and co-accused Ladu Lal murdered Aruna in Lal’s house on the night of 2–3 March 2010. Ladu Lal lodged the FIR. During investigation Ladu Lal made disclosure statements and implicated Pooranmal; police recovered a blood-stained shirt and currency notes from Pooranmal’s house and obtained CDRs showing frequent contact between the two accused near the time of the incident. The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC; the High Court affirmed those convictions. A special leave petition filed by Ladu Lal was earlier dismissed by this Court in limine; Pooranmal’s delayed petition was entertained through legal aid and the delay was condoned.

On appeal, counsel for Pooranmal argued that the case rested on circumstantial evidence that did not satisfy the tests in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, that the recovery of currency notes suffered from grave discrepancies, that the shirt’s evidentiary value was vitiated by breaches in the chain of custody, and that CDRs were not supported by the mandatory Section 65‑B certificate. The State relied on the recoveries, the FSL report indicating the shirt bore blood of the same group as the deceased, and oral proof of CDRs by service-provider employees.

The Court examined the three incriminating circumstances relied upon—(i) CDRs, (ii) the blood‑stained shirt and FSL report, and (iii) the recovered currency—and found each defective. The Court highlighted unexplained discrepancies in the currency count, inconsistencies and lacunae in malkhana and forwarding entries that broke the chain of custody for muddamal articles, and precedent requiring strict proof of chain and sanctity of samples (including Karandeep Sharma and Allarakha Habib Memon). Applying Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the Court held that electronic evidence required the Section 65‑B certificate and, absent it, CDRs were inadmissible. Having found that the circumstances neither excluded every hypothesis of innocence nor formed an unbroken chain, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1977 of 2026)
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 217
Case Title: Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 192