Back
No Linking Accused to Murder: Supreme Court Acquits Kondapaka Sridhar
Introduction: A Case Built on Shaky Grounds
In a decisive ruling that underscores the importance of , the on , acquitted Kondapaka Sridhar (also known as Shekar, Madhu, Gopi, and Chinna) of kidnapping and murder charges. The bench, comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, set aside the conviction affirmed by the , holding that the prosecution had failed to present reliable evidence connecting the appellant to the crime. The Court sharply criticized the "" that relied heavily on and improperly proved electronic records.
Background: A Ransom Demand and a Body in a Refrigerator
The case began when a man left his home for Hyderabad and could not be contacted. Two days later, his father (PW1) received a ransom call demanding ₹2,00,000, and subsequently deposited ₹1,50,000 into a bank account belonging to one Geetanjali. The police complaint led to the arrest of accused A6, whose alleged confession pointed to a flat where the victim's body was discovered hidden inside a refrigerator. Six persons were charged, but A4 died during trial. The trial court convicted A1 (the appellant), A2, A3, A5, and A6. On appeal, the High Court acquitted all except A1, upholding his conviction based primarily on the testimony of a watchman (PW3) and the appellant's failure to explain the body's presence in a flat he purportedly leased.
Prosecution's Narrative: Confessions as the Backbone
The prosecution's story was elaborate: A1, a habitual criminal, had met A4 in jail and later developed an intimate relationship with A2, who was a tenant in the victim's house. Together, they allegedly plotted a kidnapping for ransom. When that plan failed, A1 married A3 and, along with A3, A5, and A6, executed the kidnapping that led to murder. However, as the Supreme Court noted,
"there was nothing to substantiate the above story but for the confessions, which definitely cannot be relied on to inculpate any of the accused."
The confessions, being extra-judicial, were inadmissible against co-accused and could not form the basis of a conviction.
Evidence Unraveled: Electronic Records Fail the Test
The High Court had already discounted the CCTV footage showing ATM withdrawals, both for lack of a Section 65B certificate under the
and for the inability to identify the accused from the footage. The Supreme Court affirmed this, adding that the call records—which allegedly led the investigating officer to A6—were also not properly proved. The nodal officer of the service provider was never examined, and no Section 65B certificate was produced.
"The call records having not been properly proved… the entire story of careful analysis of the call records, falls flat,"
the Court observed.
The Watchman's Testimony and the Leased Flat
The conviction of A1 heavily relied on PW3, a watchman at ARK Residency, who claimed that A1 had taken Flat No.402 on lease and that he saw the appellant bring the victim to the flat. The Supreme Court found this testimony unreliable: PW3 could not provide details of other occupants, no lease agreement was produced, and the owner (PW4) failed to substantiate ownership with documents. Moreover, PW3 admitted that photographs of the suspects were shown to him before the , tainting the identification process. The Court concluded that the absence of proof of ownership and the lack of evidence that A1 occupied the flat rendered the "last seen" theory and the reliance on unsustainable.
and Missing Links
The Court noted that the investigating officer was led by confessions and failed to collect any . The money recovered from A1 and A6 could not be connected to the crime, as the CCTV footage from the ATM was not properly proved and the bank account holder, Geetanjali, was never examined. Even the discovery of the body—pointed out by A6, who was later acquitted—could not be used to incriminate A1, as no independent witness was examined for that recovery.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"But for these, there is no scrap of evidence, worthy of reliance, to connect A1 to A6 to the murder or even the flat. The IO definitely was led by the confessions and failed to collect any
connecting the accused to the crime."
-
"We, hence, find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of conviction entered against A1 by the High Court, and therefore, we set aside the same."
Final Decision: Acquittal and Release
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. It directed that if Kondapaka Sridhar was still in custody, he be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. The judgment serves as a strong reminder that convictions must rest on legally , not on investigative narratives or unsubstantiated confessions. The case highlights the critical importance of proper electronic evidence certification and the need for of witness testimony in criminal trials.
