Case at a Glance
A man was convicted with the victim’s husband for a 2010 murder in Rajasthan and sentenced to life imprisonment, purely on circumstantial evidence. Too poor to appeal in time, he approached the Supreme Court through legal aid after a delay of 2,749 days, which the Court condoned. A three-Judge Bench found the recovery of cash doubtful, the chain of custody of a blood-stained shirt broken, and the call detail records inadmissible without a Section 65-B certificate. It set aside the conviction, acquitted him, and ordered his release forthwith.
A woman was killed in her house on the night of 2/3 March 2010 in Bhilwara district, Rajasthan. Her husband lodged the report, but after his own interrogation and arrest, his disclosure statement led police to the appellant, who was arrested on 4 March 2010. Police claimed to have recovered a blood-stained shirt and ₹46,000 at the appellant’s instance, and relied on call detail records (CDRs) showing contact between the two accused around the time of the incident.
On 8 February 2012, the trial court convicted both under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed their appeal on 16 March 2018. The husband’s SLP was dismissed in limine in 2022. The appellant, who could not appeal earlier because of poverty, filed through legal aid, and the Court condoned a delay of 2,749 days.
The Key Question Before the Court
Did the circumstantial evidence, namely the cash recovery, the blood-stained shirt and the call detail records, form a complete chain proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Three Links That Broke the Chain
Justice Sandeep Mehta, writing for the Bench, applied the five conditions of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 07 SC CK 0007 (1984) 4 SCC 116 and the ‘may be’ versus ‘must be’ distinction of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 08 SC CK 0035 (1973) 2 SCC 793. On the cash, the investigating officer admitted that the chit recorded ₹46,000 while the notes counted in court came to ₹46,145, making the recovery doubtful; in any case, “mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence”. On the shirt, the Court found it improbable that an accused at large would keep a blood-stained shirt rather than destroy it, and the malkhana register contradicted the witnesses on when the articles were sent to the FSL, breaking the chain of custody. It relied on Karandeep Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 773, Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat, (2024) 08 SC CK 0016 (2024) 9 SCC 546 and Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 07 SC CK 0035 (2011) 11 SCC 724 (a matching blood group alone does not link the accused).
On the CDRs, the Court relied on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 09 SC CK 0079 (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 07 SC CK 0006 (2020) 7 SCC 1, holding that “the certificate required under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence” and that oral testimony of nodal officers cannot substitute for it. With the CDRs excluded and the recoveries unreliable, the prosecution had failed to prove an unbroken chain of circumstances.
What the Court Actually Held
- Call detail records are inadmissible without a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam); oral evidence of nodal officers cannot replace it.
- Recovery of currency, without corroboration and with discrepancies in the amount, is not an incriminating circumstance.
- A break in the chain of custody of seized articles sent for forensic examination undermines the FSL report.
- The conviction and life sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms, in a reportable three-Judge Bench ruling, that the Section 65-B certificate is mandatory for electronic evidence such as CDRs.
- It shows the value of legal aid: a prisoner too poor to appeal for years still obtained a full hearing and acquittal.
- It highlights how sloppy record-keeping in malkhanas and forensic dispatch can collapse a prosecution.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused and Families
- A long delay in appealing does not automatically bar relief; the Supreme Court condoned 2,749 days here.
- Legal services authorities can file appeals for prisoners who cannot afford lawyers.
- Check whether electronic evidence relied on by the prosecution is backed by a valid certificate.
For Counsel
- Object to CDRs at the stage they are tendered if no Section 65-B(4) or Section 63 BSA certificate is produced.
- Compare malkhana registers with witness accounts on dates of dispatch to the FSL.
- Cite Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, (2026) 03 SC CK 1405 (2026 INSC 217) with Arjun Panditrao Khotkar on CDR admissibility.
Key Takeaways
- No Section 65-B certificate means CDRs cannot be relied upon.
- Unexplained discrepancies in recovered cash make the recovery doubtful.
- Broken chain of custody weakens forensic evidence.
- In circumstantial cases, every link must be proved; one weak link can lead to acquittal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are call detail records admissible without a Section 65-B certificate?
No. Following Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the Supreme Court held the certificate is a condition precedent and oral evidence of nodal officers cannot substitute for it.
Can the Supreme Court hear an appeal filed years late?
Yes, if the delay is explained. Here the appellant could not appeal due to poverty, and the Court condoned a 2,749-day delay in his legal-aid appeal.
What happened to the co-accused husband?
His separate SLP had been dismissed in limine in 2022. This judgment decided only the appellant’s appeal.
Conclusion
The judgment is a reminder that a conviction on circumstantial evidence is only as strong as its weakest link. Here the cash did not tally, the shirt’s journey to the laboratory could not be traced, and the phone records were never properly certified. A man who had spent years in prison, unable even to afford an appeal, walked free.
Practical takeaway: In any case built on CDRs or other electronic records, insist on a valid Section 65-B(4) / Section 63 BSA certificate; without it, as Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 217) shows, the evidence cannot be used.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com