Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Pooranmal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1977 of 2026]
Decided On : 10-03-2026
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 201 [Sections 103 (1)/3(5) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 [Proviso to Section 23 of BSA] – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life imprisonment – Circumstantial evidence – There is grave discrepancy regarding exact amount of currency notes recovered by Investigating Officer purportedly in furtherance of disclosure statement made by appellant – Mere recovery of currency notes, in absence of any cogent evidence establishing clear nexus between said amount and crime, would not by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against appellant – Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence – Recovery of shirt is totally unreliable – For treating FSL report to be admissible, prosecution would have to prove complete chain of custody establishing sanctity of sealed articles right from time of seizure till the time they reached FSL – Utter failure of prosecution to disclose as to reasons for which samples were returned from FSL breaches unbroken chain of custody mandatorily required to prove safe keeping of Muddamal articles – Requisite link evidence essential to prove safe-keeping and sanctity of Muddamal articles is lacking and chain of custody has been breached beyond reprieve, thereby, making FSL report redundant – Neither recovery of currency notes is reliable, nor recovery of shirt inspires confidence – Prosecution has failed to bring home charges against – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 29, 33, 35, 44, 53, 54 and 55)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B [Section 63 of BSA] – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Admissibility of electronic evidence – Requirement of certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act for admissibility of electronic evidence is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with – In present case, certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act was not proved by prosecution – In absence of certificate, mandatorily required under Section 65-B of Evidence Act, call detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to support prosecution’s case. (Paras 49, 51 and 52)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, along with one person faced trial in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2010 before Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Both accused were convicted by trial Court vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012, for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sections 103 (1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both accused were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC [Section 238 of BNS] and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Findings of Court:
Conviction of appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by High Court cannot be sustained. Hence, impugned judgments are hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of charges. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal document details a criminal case involving the appellant, Pooranmal, who was initially convicted of murder and related offenses based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case relied on several key pieces of evidence, including the recovery of a blood-stained shirt, currency notes, and call detail records, which were used to establish the appellant’s involvement in the crime (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
However, the court scrutinized the reliability and admissibility of this evidence. It was found that the recovery of currency notes was questionable due to discrepancies in the amount recovered and a lack of direct link to the crime (!) (!) . The recovery of the blood-stained shirt was considered unreliable because the chain of custody was broken, and there were doubts about whether the evidence remained untampered from seizure to analysis (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The blood group test on the shirt, while suggestive, was deemed insufficient alone to establish guilt without corroborative evidence (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the electronic evidence, specifically call detail records, was deemed inadmissible because the mandatory certification under relevant legal provisions was not produced (!) (!) . This omission rendered the call records unreliable as evidence.
Overall, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of incriminating circumstances that could definitively link the appellant to the crime. The lack of credible, corroborative, and admissible evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the convictions and acquitted Pooranmal, emphasizing that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant, Pooranmal1 [Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-Pooranmal”] along with one Ladu Lal faced trial in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2010 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara, Rajasthan.2 [Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”] Both the accused were convicted by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012, for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] {Sections 103 (1)/3(5) of the Bhartatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’]} and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both the accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC [Section 238 of the BNS] and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. The common appeal being DB Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2012 preferred by the accused persons against their conviction stands rejected by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur5 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’] vide judgment and order dated 16th March, 2018. It may be mentioned here that Ladu Lal assailed the said judgment of the High Court by preferring Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1071 of 2022, which has been dismissed by this Court in limine vide order dated 7th February, 2022.
5. The appellant-Pooranmal who was unable to prefer an appeal owing to poverty and lack of access to legal assistance, has now filed the present appeal through legal aid.
6. Vide order dated 28th January, 2026, we took note of the distinguishing features inter se between the case of the appellant-Pooranmal and that of the co-convict Ladu Lal and issued notice in the present appeal. The case of the prosecution as against the co-convict Ladu Lal was based on recoveries as well as the reverse burden of proof as provided under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18726 [Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Evidence Act’] {Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 20237 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘BSA’]}. In contrast, insofar as the appellant-Pooranmal is concerned, the prosecution’s case rests purely on recoveries and call detail records. It was in these circumstances and remaining conscious of the dismissal of the special leave petition preferred by the co-convict Ladu Lal, that we deemed it appropriate to entertain the special leave petition filed on behalf of the appellant-Pooranmal through legal aid, notwithstanding the significant delay of 2749 days, which stands condoned by the aforesaid order.
BRIEF FACTS
7. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of this appeal are noted hereinbelow.
8. The case as set up by the prosecution is that the appellant-Pooranmal along with the co-convict Ladu Lal, committed murder of Aruna, wife of Ladu Lal, in the latter’s house on the night intervening 2nd March, 2010 and 3rd March, 2010.
9. The written report of the incident (Ex. P-40) was lodged by none other than Ladu Lal before the Station House Officer, Police Station Bijolia alleging inter alia that he was sleeping in the drawing room of his house with his son Devender. His wife, Smt. Aruna, was sleeping in the adjacent room. At about 1:30 am, he got up to attend the call of nature and found that his room was bolted from outside. He tried calling Smt. Aruna on her mobile number, but she did not respond. On this, he called his brother, Satyanarayan (PW-2), and upon receiving no response, he called his acquaintance Shankar Singh Rathore, posted as constable at the Police Station Bijolia. Thereafter, some people gathered at the spot and opened his room from outside. Upon proceeding to the adjoining room, they found Smt. Aruna lying on the bed with visible injuries, including a wound on her left tem
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence.(2) Electronic evidence – Requirement of certi....
The court reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence must connect all links beyond reasonable doubt and that possession of stolen items without explanation infers guilt.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt; isolated pieces of evidence are insufficient for conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of circumstances and reliable evidence to prove guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B(4)....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
