Major Acts Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 (Power to Examine the Accused), Section 161 (Examination of Witnesses by Police)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 (Punishment for Murder), Section 364 (Kidnapping for Murder), Section 376(2)(m) (Aggravated Sexual Assault), Section 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence of Offense)

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B (Admissibility of Electronic Records), Section 27 (Confession Leading to Discovery)

Subjects:

Circumstantial evidence – Last seen doctrine – Electronic evidence admissibility – Identification parade – Forensic inconsistencies – Procedural lapses – Acquittal – Gaps in prosecution case – Presumption of innocence – Chain of evidence – Death penalty reversal

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation: Appeal against the Bombay High Court judgment upholding conviction and death sentence.

2. Petitioner: Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap, challenging his conviction.

3. Respondent: State of Maharashtra defending the High Court’s decision.

4. Reason for Filing: Challenge to evidentiary reliability, procedural irregularities, and lack of direct evidence.

5. Prior Decisions: Conviction upheld by the Bombay High Court, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

a) Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime? 
b) Whether the CCTV footage was admissible without a Section 65-B certificate? 
c) Whether the identification parade was vitiated due to prior media exposure of the accused? 
d) Whether forensic findings conclusively established the guilt of the accused? 
e) Whether the alleged confession of the accused was legally admissible? 

Submissions/Arguments:

Prosecution’s Contentions:

• Relied on CCTV footage showing the accused with the victim. 

• Depended on last seen doctrine, with PW-20 and PW-21 identifying the accused. 

• Pointed to forensic evidence confirming sexual assault and smothering. 

• Cited accused’s post-crime behavior, including a puja to cleanse sins. 

Defense’s Contentions:

• Challenged the admissibility of CCTV footage due to lack of a Section 65-B certificate. 

• Contended that identification parade was unreliable due to prior media exposure. 

• Argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence. 

• Highlighted inconsistencies in forensic evidence and procedural lapses. 

Decision:

• Supreme Court held that prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. 

• Found witness testimonies unreliable due to inconsistencies and delayed statements. 

• Ruled that electronic evidence was inadmissible without proper certification. 

• Acquitted the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof on prosecution. 

Ratio Decidendi:

• Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and form an unbroken chain to establish guilt. 

• Last seen doctrine alone is insufficient without corroborating evidence. 

• Electronic records must comply with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 

• Identification parade loses evidentiary value if the accused’s identity is publicly known.