2026 Supreme(Guj) 1071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, R. T. VACHHANI, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant 
Versus
Baldevbhai Budhaji Dhulaji Chauhan (Thakor) – Respondent 
R/Criminal Confirmation Case No. 2 Of 2024, R/Criminal Appeal No. 2812 Of 2024, Criminal Misc.Application (For Suspension Of Sentence) No.1 Of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2026

In cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and established by cogent, reliable evidence, excluding all hypotheses of innocence. Mandatory statutory procedures for proving discovery and electronic evidence must be strictly followed, as police statements recorded during investigation do not constitute substantive evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 24, 25, 26, 27 and 65-B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161, 162, 313 and 374(2) - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - The criteria for conviction require the circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and form a chain so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The court must distinguish between 'may be' and 'must be' guilty (Para 20).

(B) Evidence - Electronic records - Admissibility - The production of a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic evidence. Secondary electronic evidence is inadmissible without such certification (Para 27).

(C) Evidence - Discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - The investigating officer must record the exact words of the disclosure statement given by the accused in the presence of independent witnesses. Failure to prove these exact words during trial renders the discovery inadmissible (Para 26).

(D) Evidence - Police statements under Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr.P.C. - Such statements do not constitute substantive evidence and can only be used for the limited purpose of contradicting the maker in the manner provided by law (Para 25).

Facts of the case:
Prosecution alleged the occurrence of a double murder and destruction of evidence. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged motive, the theory of being 'last seen', recovery of weapons and clothes at the instance of the accused, and electronic recordings. The trial court convicted the accused of murder and imposed the death penalty. The accused appealed the judgment, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and procedural irregularities in the investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the conviction rested on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The panchnama witnesses turned hostile, and the disclosure statements were not proven in accordance with the law as the investigating officer failed to record the exact words of the accused. Furthermore, the electronic records lacked the mandatory certification, and police statements recorded during investigation were not substantive evidence. The chain of circumstantial evidence was found to be incomplete and insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

Issues: (1) Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) whether discovery panchnamas and electronic evidence were admissible and effectively proved; and (3) whether the conviction can be sustained on statements made to the police during investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under a mandatory duty to elevate the case from the realm of 'may be' true to 'must be' true. Every incriminating circumstance must be connected by a golden thread of evidence. In the absence of proof of such complete chain and failure to comply with statutory requirements for electronic and discovery evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and order of death sentence are set aside.