1. Murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery — Conviction and death sentence challenged — Appeal against judgment upholding conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019
Decided On : 28-01-2025
Important Points
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with Section 397 - Death penalty - Conviction upheld by High Court, later overturned by Supreme Court - Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence - Key evidence included CCTV footage, witness testimonies, and extra-judicial confessions, all deemed unreliable - Acquitted appellant. (Paras 123, 124)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Five golden principles established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra - Circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt, and form a complete chain of evidence. (Paras 15, 122)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a young woman, with the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage and witness testimonies. The body was found decomposed, and the cause of death was determined to be homicide. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required for a conviction, particularly in a death penalty case. (Paras 123, 124)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of circumstantial evidence and whether the prosecution had established a clear link between the appellant and the crime. (Paras 122, 123)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for a complete and unbroken chain of evidence. (Paras 122, 123)
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted. (Paras 123, 124)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Five golden principles established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra - Circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt, and form a complete chain of evidence. (Paras 15, 122)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a young woman, with the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage and witness testimonies. The body was found decomposed, and the cause of death was determined to be homicide. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required for a conviction, particularly in a death penalty case. (Paras 123, 124)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of circumstantial evidence and whether the prosecution had established a clear link between the appellant and the crime. (Paras 122, 123)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for a complete and unbroken chain of evidence. (Paras 122, 123)
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted. (Paras 123, 124)
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
-
The case involves a murder charge where the evidence primarily rests on circumstantial evidence. The court emphasizes that such evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases leading to capital punishment (!) (!) .
-
The prosecution relied on various pieces of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, witness testimonies, and extrajudicial confessions. However, the court found significant infirmities in the reliability and admissibility of this evidence, particularly the CCTV footage, which lacked the requisite legal certification under the relevant evidentiary provisions (!) (!) .
-
The CCTV footage was obtained from DVRs with limited retention periods, and the prosecution failed to produce the necessary certification to establish its admissibility under the law governing electronic evidence. As a result, the court held that the CCTV evidence could not be relied upon to establish the identity or last seen circumstances of the accused and the deceased (!) (!) .
-
Witness testimonies regarding the last seen together or sightings of the accused around the time of the incident were inconsistent, delayed, and lacked corroboration. Many witnesses only claimed to have seen the accused alone, and their statements were recorded well after the incident, raising doubts about their reliability (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The identification procedures, including the identification parade, were deemed unreliable due to the circulation of photographs in the media prior to the parade, which compromised the fairness and independence of the identification process (!) (!) .
-
The evidence of the accused’s extra-judicial confession was considered weak, surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and lacked corroboration. The court highlighted that such confessions require careful scrutiny and should be supported by cogent circumstances to be deemed reliable (!) (!) .
-
The recovery of articles, including the trolley bag and other items, was found to be unconvincing due to procedural lapses, lack of proper documentation, and the presence of holes in the chain of custody. The evidence linking these articles to the accused was therefore insufficient to establish guilt (!) (!) .
-
The medical evidence confirmed that the death was homicidal, caused by head injury with associated injuries to the genital region, which could have been caused by forcible entry. Nonetheless, the court noted discrepancies and the absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the act of killing (!) (!) .
-
The court critically examined the timeline of events, witness credibility, and the reliability of the evidence presented. It concluded that many of the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence pieces were weak, inconsistent, or improperly obtained, which collectively failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
-
Ultimately, the court held that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof necessary for a conviction, especially for a capital offense. The evidence was insufficiently conclusive, and the chain of circumstances was not complete or free from reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
-
As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards for evidence, particularly electronic evidence, and the necessity of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in serious criminal cases (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shri Singh, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Vaya, Adv. Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raja Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Akash Kavade, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shri Singh, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Vaya, Adv. Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raja Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Akash Kavade, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Admissibility of electronic evidence without certificate — Reliability of last seen witnesses and identification parades — Veracity of extra-judicial confessions and recoveries. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 32 , 33 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 65 , 66 , 80 , 89 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 116 , 119 )
3. CCTV inadmissible for lack of certificate — Last seen witnesses unreliable due to delay and media exposure — Extra-judicial confession lacks corroboration and credibility. (Para 11 , 12 , 34 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 51 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 75 , 77 , 81 , 82 , 90 , 108 , 110 , 112 , 115 , 120 , 121 , 122 )
4. Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding all other hypotheses — Section 65-B(4) certificate is a condition precedent for admissibility of electronic records. (Para 15 , 35 , 49 , 76 , 121 , 122 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and death sentence set aside — Appellant acquitted and set at liberty. (Para 123 , 124 )
6. Is a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records?
Yes, a certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record. Oral evidence cannot substitute this mandatory requirement, and failure to produce the certificate renders the electronic record inadmissible. (Para 35 , 49 )
7. What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, exclude every other possible hypothesis, and form a complete chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 15 , 121 , 122 )
8. How does the prior publication of an accused's photograph in the media affect the validity of a Test Identification Parade?
If witnesses have ample opportunity to see the accused through media, photographs, or physically before the identification parade is held, the evidence of the parade is not admissible as a valid piece of evidence. (Para 73 , 74 )
9. What are the principles for evaluating the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession?
Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence that must be examined with care. It attains credibility only if it is voluntary, truthful, inspires confidence, and is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and independent reliable corroboration. (Para 108 , 109 )
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 20.12.2018 in Confirmation Case no. 3 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2015. By the said judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence of death imposed on the appellant by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 388 of 2014 and consequently dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with Section 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). For the offences punishable; under Section 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to death; under Section 364 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year; under Section 366 IPC, a sentence of ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default RI for one year; under Section 376(2)(m) IPC, a sentence of RI for ten years; under Section 376A IPC, RI for life which was to mean imprisonment for remainder of his natural life; under Section 392 read with 397 IPC, a sentence of RI for seven years and under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to RI of seven years. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to be payable to the parents of the deceased.
The case of the Prosecution :-
2. The deceased is a 23 year old young woman (hereinafter referred to as ‘EA’ in the judgment). PW-26 Singavarapa Jonathan Surendra Prasad is the father of the deceased EA. According to the prosecution, the deceased, who was working in Mumbai and staying at the YWCA Hostel for Women in Andheri, visited her parents at Machilipatnam in Andhra Pradesh between 22.12.2013 and 04.01.2014. On 04.01.2014, PW-26 dropped her at the Vijayawada Railway Station at about 05:00 AM. The deceased EA boarded Visakhapatnam LTT Express which was to reach Mumbai early morning on 05.01.2014. The deceased EA called her father at 09:00 PM on 04.01.2014 when the train was crossing Solapur Station. According to PW-26, after reaching Mumbai, EA did not contact him. He, however, constantly made attempts to contact her mobile number but there was no response. PW-26 contacted the YWCA Hostel where she was staying, and he was informed that EA had not turned up. According to PW-26, on 05.01.2014 itself, he lodged a missing complaint with the Railway Police Station at Vijayawada. Thereafter, he took the missing complaint and went to Mumbai. He along with his relatives went to LTT Railway Station where the Railway Police told PW-26 that the case did not come under their jurisdiction and directed him to go to Kurla Police Station.
3. Thereafter, PW-26 states that with the help of police they started searching for his daughter and the last signal of the tower location of her mobile was found at Bhandup. The anxious father continued his search along with his relatives. Ultimately, on 16.01.2014, they found the body of EA in the bushes near the Express Highway. PW-26 states that the condition of the body was burnt and beyond recognition. Based on a ring in her finger, he identified the body as that of his daughter. According to PW-26, as the case came under Kanjur Marg Police Station, he lodged a complaint therein for the offence of murder and an F.I.R. (Exh.134) was registered.
4. PW-30 Dattatray Tukaram Naikodi is the Police Inspector who was then attached to Kanjur Marg Police Station. He recorded the F.I.R. and registered the crime bearing No. 6 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC at about 08:15 PM (information received at 5.45 PM) on 16.01.2014. He proceeded to the spot and found a decomposed body of a female. He arranged for dog squad and for persons from the Forensic Science Labor
