SC Acquits Murder Accused as Shoddy Probe Fails Electronic Evidence Proof
Copy Link
Share
Save
Exposing glaring lapses in police investigation and strict non-compliance with statutory evidentiary requirements, the Supreme Court has set aside a murder conviction founded on unproven electronic records and unverified last-seen circumstances. The decision underscores that fatal gaps in establishing lease ownership, combined with the inadmissibility of uncertified call records and ATM CCTV footage, completely shatter the prosecution's circumstantial chain.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the conviction of the sole surviving convict in a 2011 kidnapping and murder case. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s case crumbled due to reliance on uncorroborated confessions, unverified lease agreements, and electronic evidence rendered inadmissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862.
Key Takeaways
- Strict Adherence to Electronic Evidence Rules: Electronic records such as CCTV footage and call detail records cannot be relied upon without proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862 and testimony of official service providers.
- Failure of Section 106 Burden: Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862 cannot be invoked to demand an explanation from an accused regarding a recovery unless the prosecution independently proves exclusive possession or lease of the premises.
- Confession Inadmissibility: Extra-judicial confessions and statements elicited during police custody without independent corroboration carry zero evidentiary value to incriminate co-accused.
Court's Rationale on Section 106 and Evidence Lapses
The Supreme Court highlighted that the investigation was exceptionally shoddy and failed to establish any substantive evidence connecting the accused to the crime scene or the victim. The prosecution failed to produce any lease deed, visitor registers, or proof of flat ownership to establish that the accused occupied the premises from where the body was recovered.
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The absence of proof of ownership of the flat from which the corpus delicti was recovered and the employment of PW3 as a watchman in the flat, debunk the theory of lease to A1 and consequently reliance placed on Section 106 of the Evidence Act; ie: no proper explanation for the dead body’s presence in the apartment occupied by A1, on lease. It also casts a long shadow of doubt insofar as the last seen theory of A1 having taken the deceased to the apartment from where his body was recovered."
The Court further noted: "That the deceased died of ‘asphyxia due to smothering, associated with strangulation’, is established by the post-mortem report and the dead body was detected, tucked away in a refrigerator inside an apartment. But for these, there is no scrap of evidence, worthy of reliance, to connect A1 to A6 to the murder or even the flat. The I.O definitely was led by the confessions and failed to collect any substantive evidence connecting the accused to the crime."
The Court has the following directions:
"We, hence, find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of conviction entered against A1 by the High Court, and therefore, we set aside the same. We have already directed A1 to be released and if he has been so released, the bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled. If A1 is still in custody, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case."
Ratio
In a case built purely on circumstantial evidence, failure to legally prove the accused's exclusive domain or lease over the recovery site precludes the invocation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862. Furthermore, electronic records such as CDRs and CCTV footage are completely inadmissible in the absence of mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862 and examination of competent witnesses.
Background
The case arose from the kidnapping and murder of a man who went missing after leaving for Hyderabad. His father subsequently received a ransom call demanding money to be deposited in a specific bank account. Following an investigation, the police arrested multiple accused persons based on call detail analysis and confessions, ultimately discovering the victim's body inside a refrigerator in a rented flat.
The Trial Court convicted five accused based on circumstantial evidence, including ransom money recovery, last seen theory, and identification in a Test Identification Parade (TIP). On appeal, the High Court acquitted four accused due to lack of substantive proof, invalid TIP, and inadmissible electronic evidence, but affirmed the conviction of Appellant (A1) by applying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862.
Upon examining the appeal, the Supreme Court held that since flat ownership, tenancy, and watchman employment were never established with documentary evidence, Section 106 could not be triggered against A1. Allowing the appeal, the apex court set aside the conviction and ordered his immediate release.
Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 951
Case Title: KONDAPAKA SRIDHAR @SHEKAR @MADHU @GOPI @CHINNA v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 2579
Breaking News
