2025 (1) TMI 1535 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court acquits death row convict due to inadequate circumstantial evidence and improper CCTV admission without Section 65-B certificate

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap Versus The State of Maharashtra

SC allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, setting aside the death sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The prosecution failed to establish ... Challenge to conviction and the sentence of death imposed on the Appellant by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay - admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence, specifically CCTV footage, without a Section 65-B(4) certificate - circumstantial evidence - failure of prosecution to follow the mandate Under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the failure to produce the Section 65-B(4) certificate - HELD THAT:- In Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh [2018 (1) TMI 1402 - SUPREME COURT], a two Judge Bench of this Court after noticing Anvar P.V. [2014 (9) TMI 1007 - SUPREME COURT] held that a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced cannot be required to produce the certificate Under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. It also held that applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by the Court wherever interest of justice so justifies. A court of law in this scenario cannot be technical about the manner of objections that are raised. Even though objection has not been raised specifically when the CCTV footage was exhibited by PW- 1, when PW-38 was in the witness box a specific question was put to him and subsequent to evidence, he deposed that he was aware of the necessity of furnishing 65-B certificate while collecting electronic evidence. On the facts of the present case, we are inclined to treat it as an objection taken at the earliest point in time. Thus, when the prosecution was aware of the need for the 65-B(4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs there was no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV footage - no reliance can be placed on the CCTV footage, insofar as an attempt is made by the prosecution to attribute that the Appellant and the deceased EA were last seen together based on the CCTV footage. There are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case. While the old adage, witness may lie but not the circumstances, may be correct, however, the circumstances adduced, as held by this Court, should be fully established. There is a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as held by this Court. The circumstances relied upon when stitched together do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused and it is not found that the chain is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Accused. On the available evidence, it is opined that it will be extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction against the Appellant. The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is constrained to come to the sole irresistible conclusion that the Appellant is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged. Conclusion - The prosecution failed to establish the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the inadequacies in the circumstantial evidence presented. There is a necessity of a Section 65-B(4) certificate for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Court acquitted the Appellant, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the death sentence, due to the prosecution's failure to meet the required legal standards - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the conviction and death sentence of the Appellant, based on circumstantial evidence, were justified.The admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence, specifically CCTV footage, without a Section 65-B(4) certificate.The credibility and sufficiency of witness testimonies, particularly those related to the last seen theory and extra-judicial confessions.The validity of the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.The appropriateness of the investigative procedures and the handling of evidence by the police.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISAdmissibility of Electronic Evidence:The legal framework requires a Section 65-B(4) certificate for the admissibility of electronic records, such as CCTV footage, as evidence.The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide the necessary certificate, rendering the CCTV footage inadmissible.The absence of this certificate was a significant procedural lapse, especially in a case involving capital punishment.Last Seen Theory and Witness Testimonies:The prosecution relied on testimonies from witnesses who claimed to have seen the Appellant with the deceased or in suspicious circumstances.The Court found inconsistencies and delays in recording these statements, which undermined their credibility.The identification parades were also questioned due to the prior public exposure of the Appellant's images, which could have influenced witness identifications.The Court emphasized that the time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the body was too wide to conclusively establish the Appellant's guilt.Extra-Judicial Confession:The prosecution presented an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the Appellant to a witness.The Court noted that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak and require corroboration, which was lacking in this case.The witness's credibility was further questioned due to inconsistencies and the circumstances under which the confession was allegedly made.Chain of Circumstantial Evidence:The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, which the Court found to be disjointed and insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The Court highlighted the need for a complete and unbroken chain of evidence, which was absent in this case.The evidence presented did not exclude the possibility of other hypotheses, failing to meet the stringent standards required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.Investigative Procedures and Evidence Handling:The Court criticized the investigative process, noting procedural lapses and the lack of proper documentation and handling of evidence.The recovery of items allegedly linked to the crime was deemed unreliable due to the absence of corroborative evidence and procedural irregularities.The Court expressed concern over the police's failure to adequately address the defense's challenges to the evidence.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the inadequacies in the circumstantial evidence presented.It reaffirmed the necessity of a Section 65-B(4) certificate for the admissibility of electronic evidence, emphasizing its critical role in ensuring the integrity of such evidence.The judgment underscored the principle that extra-judicial confessions require corroboration and should be treated with caution.The Court reiterated the importance of a complete and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction.Ultimately, the Court acquitted the Appellant, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the death sentence, due to the prosecution's failure to meet the required legal standards.