Custodial confessions and missing call records can defeat a prosecution case when the remaining evidence fails the reasonable doubt test.

Confessional statements recorded after prolonged police custody and later retracted were treated as unsafe where complaints, oral evidence and medical material suggested custodial torture, and where the statements lacked essential details and showed internal uniformity across accused. The discussion also notes that destruction or non-production of call detail records can justify an adverse inference when those records were relevant to testing alleged contacts, meetings and movements. On the remaining evidence, the court found the eyewitness and recovery material insufficient to complete the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction and death references could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confessional statements recorded from the accused were voluntary, truthful and admissible in evidence; (ii) whether the destruction and non-production of call detail records justified an adverse inference against the prosecution; (iii) whether the conviction and death references could be sustained on the evidence on record.

Issue (i): Whether the confessional statements recorded from the accused were voluntary, truthful and admissible in evidence.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the confessions were recorded after prolonged police custody, were promptly retracted, and were supported by detailed complaints, oral evidence and in some cases medical material indicating custodial torture. The confessions also lacked essential particulars about the bomb-making process and the actual execution of the blasts, and several portions were found to be vague, incomplete and in parts identical across accused. Applying the rule against confessions appearing to have been caused by inducement, threat or pressure, the Court held that the statements could not be safely relied upon.

Conclusion: The confessional statements were held inadmissible and incapable of supporting conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether the destruction and non-production of call detail records justified an adverse inference against the prosecution.

Analysis: The call detail records could have been used to test the alleged inter se contacts, the claimed meetings, the asserted movement of the accused and the alleged links with persons in Pakistan. The prosecution either did not rely upon them or failed to produce them, and the explanation for their destruction was found unsatisfactory. In these circumstances, the withholding of the records materially affected the prosecution case and undermined the assurance of a fair trial.

Conclusion: An adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution for non-production and destruction of the call detail records.

Issue (iii): Whether the conviction and death references could be sustained on the evidence on record.

Analysis: Once the confessions were excluded and the remaining ocular and recovery evidence was tested, the Court found the eyewitness evidence unsafe, the recoveries insufficient by themselves, and the prosecution unable to establish the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The cumulative material did not prove the charges to the required standard.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained, and the death references were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused were entitled to acquittal and release, subject to any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession recorded in custody is unusable where surrounding circumstances show that it was likely the product of coercion or torture, and where the remaining evidence does not independently complete the chain of guilt, conviction cannot stand; withholding material electronic evidence can further justify an adverse inference against the prosecution.

---