Circumstantial evidence and Section 65B compliance proved decisive: speculative motive and uncertified call records could not sustain conviction.

A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must rest on a complete chain of proved circumstances consistent only with guilt. The alleged motive was speculative, the last seen evidence contained material contradictions, and the recovery evidence was uncertain, so the prosecution did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Electronic call records also could not be relied on because the mandatory Section 65B certification requirement was not complied with, and oral proof could not replace the statutory certificate. On those facts, the prosecution case failed on both evidentiary sufficiency and admissibility, and the conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction could be sustained on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen theory and recovery; and (ii) whether the call records were admissible without compliance with the certificate requirement for electronic evidence.

Issue (i): whether the conviction could be sustained on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen theory and recovery.

Analysis: The conviction rested solely on circumstantial evidence, so the circumstances had to form a complete and coherent chain and be inconsistent only with the guilt of the accused. The Court found that the alleged motive was based on conjecture drawn from call details, without direct proof of illicit intimacy or of any objective for the murders. The last seen evidence suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies, and the recovery evidence was also not free from uncertainty. Taken together, the evidence did not conclusively establish that the appellant committed the murders.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained on the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution.

Issue (ii): whether the call records were admissible without compliance with the certificate requirement for electronic evidence.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled rule that electronic records are admissible only in compliance with Section 65B, and that the certificate contemplated by Section 65B(4) is a mandatory condition precedent unless the original device itself is produced in the manner recognised by law. Oral proof cannot substitute for the statutory certificate. Since the call records relied upon by the prosecution were not duly certified, they could not be treated as admissible evidence for the purpose for which they were relied upon.

Conclusion: The call records were not admissible in the absence of compliance with the statutory certification requirement.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of complete and admissible circumstantial evidence, and the conviction of the appellant was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution resting solely on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be fully proved and must complete an unbroken chain consistent only with guilt; electronic records relied upon as evidence must satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 65B before they can be used against an .

---