The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur on October 30, 2026, acquitted eleven individuals previously convicted in a high-profile honour killing case, citing a fundamentally flawed police investigation. The division bench, comprising Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal, overturned the conviction and death sentence, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the critical electronic evidence that formed the backbone of the state’s case. The court’s decision marks a significant intervention into the handling of digital records by law enforcement, culminating in strict directions for institutional reform.

The case originated from an FIR filed in 2019 regarding the deaths of a man named Ganpat Lal and a woman named Prem, daughter of the primary appellant, Ramgopal. The trial court had initially relied on a theory of honour killing, supported primarily by CCTV footage retrieved from the family home and a local petrol pump. However, the High Court found that the investigative agency had failed to comply with the mandatory procedures governing the collection and preservation of secondary electronic evidence.

Defective Investigation and the Failure of Electronic Evidence

The High Court scrutinized the handling of the Digital Video Recorders (DVRs) and the subsequent transfer of footage onto pen drives, which served as the primary proof of the defendants' presence at the scene. The investigation revealed that the DVR seized from the home of the accused was recovered four days after the incident, despite police visits to the premises in the interim. More critically, the seized devices were never properly sealed, and there were no reliable logs documenting the chain of custody.

The court noted that the prosecution’s reliance on these files was legally unsustainable, as the required certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act—or its equivalent provisions—was riddled with procedural irregularities. Witnesses testifying as experts to authenticate the data admitted during cross-examination that they were unable to guarantee that the footage had not been tampered with or that the devices were under secure control.

"It is trite law that, before any electronic evidence or sample can be relied upon against an accused, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish a safe and unbroken chain of custody ," the bench observed in its ruling. The court found that the "casual, perfunctory and lackadaisical manner" in which the police handled these records prevented the evidence from meeting the high standard of proof required in criminal trials, especially in matters involving capital punishment .

Judicial Critique of Police Methodology

The bench further addressed the credibility of the "last seen" theory, which the trial court had utilized to build its case. The High Court pointed out that the Investigating Officer (IO) had identified the appellants in the footage despite admitting that he was not acquainted with them prior to the incident. Furthermore, the court highlighted the defense’s repeated objections that the individuals shown in the low-light footage were not clearly identifiable due to poor clarity.

The court noted that an arrest memo, which the trial court had used to compare the accused’s features with the pixelated figures in the video, did not constitute substantive evidence. The absence of verified photographs in the arrest documentation rendered the identification process legally void. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution could not establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence consistent only with the hypothesis of the appellants' guilt. Regarding the recovery of incriminating materials, the bench also observed that the disclosure statements relied upon by the prosecution were not proved in court by the IO in the exact words uttered by the accused, violating the legal standards set by the Supreme Court of India in cases such as Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh .

Directions for Standardized Procedural Reform

In a broader effort to address systemic failures in criminal investigation, the court issued extensive directives to the state police. The bench emphasized that the "dispensation of justice by the Courts in criminal matters rests, in large measures, upon the quality of material placed before them." Recognizing that most investigative officers are unaware of the technical procedures required for modern forensics, the High Court ordered the Director General of Police to frame and circulate a standard operating procedure (SOP) within two months.

This new SOP must mandate the prompt identification of all digital sources, require the computation of hash values for forensic copies of electronic records, and ensure the strict maintenance of chain-of-custody registers. Additionally, the court ordered that the Director of Prosecution organize training programs for Public Prosecutors on the methods of proving electronic evidence to prevent future evidentiary failures.

The judgment underscores that justice cannot be achieved when written proof, evidence, and logical reasoning are not in harmony. "A learned judge should not accept any matter without evidence. A mere statement cannot be considered proof," the court stated, invoking ancient legal principles to emphasize the gravity of the oversight.

Following the acquittal, the court ordered the immediate release of the ten appellants currently in custody. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court has been directed to ensure that a copy of this judgment is transmitted to the Principal Secretary (Home), the Director General of Police, and the Director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory. All parties are required to submit a compliance report to the High Court within three months, signaling a formal shift in how digital evidence must be handled throughout the state’s criminal justice system. The acquittal leaves the case closed, as the prosecution could not sustain the burden of proof required to link the accused to the homicidal deaths beyond a reasonable doubt.