Supreme Court Acquitted Man Sentenced to Death After Finding CCTV Evidence Inadmissible and Circumstantial Case Incomplete

A Constitution bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan, B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the criminal appeal by Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap against the Bombay High Court’s confirmation of his conviction and death sentence for offences including murder, rape and robbery under Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with 397 and 201 IPC. The appeal challenged the Trial Court and High Court findings based largely on circumstantial material and CCTV footage obtained from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments below and acquitted the appellant. It held that the central electronic evidence—the CCTV footage—could not be relied upon because the prosecution failed to comply with the statutory requirement of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act; further, the circumstantial chain did not meet the settled tests laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and subsequent authorities. The Court emphasised that admissibility of electronic records was governed by the law in Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and that non-compliance with the certificate requirement displaced reliance on the footage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “All these facts cumulatively constrain us to conclude that there are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case. While the old adage, witness may lie but not the circumstances, may be correct, however, the circumstances relied upon, as held by this Court, should be fully established. There is a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as held by this Court. The circumstances relied upon when stitched together do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and we do not find that the chain is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”

Background The prosecution’s case was that the deceased, a 23‑year‑old woman working in Mumbai, boarded the Visakhapatnam–LTT Express on 04–05 January 2014 and thereafter did not return to her hostel; her partly burnt decomposed body was recovered near the Eastern Express Highway on 16 January 2014. Post‑mortem opinion recorded “head injury with smothering associated with genital injuries.” The Trial Court convicted the appellant and imposed death for murder; the High Court on 20.12.2018 confirmed conviction and sentence.

At trial the prosecution relied on circumstantial matters: CCTV footage said to show the appellant and the deceased at LTT; witness recollections of seeing the appellant at the terminus; alleged “last seen together” testimony; a purported extra‑judicial confession to a local acquaintance; recoveries including a trolley bag and personal effects; and conduct evidence such as a puja performed by the appellant. The defence challenged chain‑of‑custody, delays in recording statements, absence of semen or direct forensic corroboration, the belated production of medical opinions, the procedures by which CCTV footage was seized and the non‑production of the Section 65‑B(4) certificate.

The Supreme Court analysed jurisprudence on electronic evidence (Anvar P.V.; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar) and confirmed that the Section 65‑B(4) certificate was a condition precedent for admissibility of secondary electronic records, noting that subsequent authorities clarified remedies where the certificate could not be procured. Applying the five golden principles for circumstantial evidence, the Court found multiple infirmities: the CCTV footage was eschewed for want of the statutory certificate; many witness statements were belated or inconsistent; the identification parade was vitiated by prior media circulation of images; recoveries and extra‑judicial confession lacked reliable corroboration; and the chain of circumstances did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The Court therefore held that the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and ordered acquittal. The appellant was to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 116 (Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019) Case Title: Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Shri Singh (pro bono) assisted by Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Pratiksha Basarkar, Sakshi Jain and Surabhi Vaya For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raja Thakare, Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey and Ms. Yamini Singh