Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed a criminal appeal arising from a conviction for kidnapping and murder. The prosecution case began with a person missing after leaving for Hyderabad, followed by a ransom call to his father demanding Rs.2,00,000 and instructions to deposit money in a bank account. The father lodged a complaint and deposited Rs.1,50,000 in an account of one Geetanjali. Investigation led to arrest of A6, who pointed out a flat where the missing person's body was recovered from a refrigerator. Six accused were tried; A4 died during trial, and the Trial Court convicted A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6. The High Court acquitted A2, A3, A5 and A6 but affirmed conviction of A1 solely on PW3's testimony and the circumstance that A1 did not explain presence of body in the apartment he allegedly leased, invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court scrutinised the evidence and found that the entire prosecution story depended on confessions of accused, which could not inculpate any accused. The Trial Court had relied on circumstantial evidence including missing victim, ransom call, money deposit, withdrawals, call details, discovery of body, and last seen theory. The High Court rejected CCTV footage and call records because they lacked certificate under Section 65B and proper witnesses, but still upheld A1's conviction on PW3's testimony and Section 106. The Supreme Court noted that PW3, a claimed watchman at ARK Residency, could not provide details of occupants, no visitor register, no lease deed, and no ownership documents were produced by PW4. The absence of proof of ownership of the flat and employment of PW3 as watchman debunked the theory of lease to A1 and undermined Section 106 reliance and last seen theory. Moreover, electronic evidence was not proved through Nodal Officer or with Section 65B certificate, making call records and CCTV footage inadmissible. Money recovered from A1 and A6 was not connected to the crime; the account holder Geetanjali was not examined, and bank records were not proved. The post-mortem established death by asphyxia due to smothering with strangulation, but there was no credible evidence linking the accused to the murder or even the flat. The investigation was shoddy and relied on confessions. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no scrap of evidence worthy of reliance to connect the accused to the crime. It set aside the conviction of A1, directed his release forthwith if not wanted in any other case, and ordered cancellation of bail bonds if already released. Pending applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Confession - Admissibility of Confession of Co-accused - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The entire prosecution story rested on confessions elicited from accused, which cannot be relied on to inculpate any accused; the court found nothing to substantiate the story projected from confessions and held they cannot form the basis of conviction (Paras 3-4). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 - The High Court relied on PW3's testimony that A1 brought the deceased to the apartment and later body was recovered, but prosecution failed to prove ownership of flat, employment of PW3 as watchman, or lease to A1; this debunked the theory of lease and cast doubt on last seen theory; Held that last seen evidence cannot sustain conviction when foundational facts are not proved (Paras 7, 9-12). C) Criminal Law - Electronic Evidence - Certificate under Section 65B - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 65B - CCTV footage and call records were not admissible because no certificate under Section 65B was produced and Nodal Officer was not examined; the High Court rightly disregarded them; Held that absence of proper certification makes electronic evidence unreliable and the case based on call records falls flat (Paras 6, 12, 14). D) Criminal Law - Burden of Explanation - Section 106 Evidence Act - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 - Conviction of A1 was based on his failure to explain presence of body in apartment he allegedly leased, but prosecution failed to establish his connection to the flat due to lack of ownership proof, lease deed, and independent witnesses; Held that Section 106 cannot be invoked to shift burden without proving foundational facts, and conviction based on it is unsustainable (Paras 11-12, 16). E) Criminal Law - Investigation Defects - Substantive Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Investigation was shoddy and relied on confessions, failed to collect substantive evidence such as independent witness for discovery, bank account holder examination, or document proof; money recovered was not linked to crime; Held that where investigation is defective and no credible evidence connects accused to crime, benefit of doubt must lead to acquittal (Paras 12-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in affirming conviction of A1 based solely on the testimony of PW3 and the circumstance of A1 not explaining presence of body in the apartment, in absence of substantive evidence and proper proof of electronic records
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence against A1 set aside; A1 to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case; bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled if already released; pending applications disposed of
Law Points
- Conviction cannot be based solely on confessions of accused
- Section 106 Evidence Act cannot be invoked unless foundational facts proved
- electronic evidence requires certificate under Section 65B and proper witness
- last seen theory requires credible evidence
- benefit of doubt goes to accused
- chain of circumstances must be complete
