A disputed WhatsApp message without proven authorship or personal knowledge cannot sustain a conviction.

On 9 February 2019, the deceased was found dead in an open field beside his motorcycle.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had assaulted him at the appellant’s home, relying principally on WhatsApp messages between two witnesses, alleged recoveries of blood-stained soil and weapons, and injuries on the appellant.

The witnesses said to have observed or heard the alleged incident did not support the prosecution at trial; one denied sending the messages, and the blood evidence could not be linked to the deceased.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and the High Court affirmed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the WhatsApp messages and alleged recoveries, established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the evidence excluded the possibility that the deceased’s injuries resulted from an accident, and whether the appellant’s unexplained injuries supported conviction.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be fully established, the circumstances must cumulatively form a complete chain pointing unerringly to guilt, and they must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt; the accused must be shown to “must be,” not merely “may be,” guilty (*Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*; *Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra*).

Under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act, facts forming part of the same transaction, facts connected as cause or effect, and relevant conduct may be admissible, but the court must assess whether the asserted facts satisfy the statutory requirements.

Sections 302 and 201 IPC were the offences for which the appellant had been convicted.

The prosecution did not establish that the deceased was last seen with the appellant: the relevant witnesses did not support that allegation.

Although the electronic records showed messages had been sent, the witnesses’ evidence did not establish who authored them or whether their contents were based on personal knowledge; the messages therefore raised suspicion but did not prove the alleged assault.

The seizure evidence was inconsistent as to whether blood-stained soil and other articles came from the appellant’s house, and the blood could not be linked to the deceased.

The deceased was found beside a motorcycle, and the doctor did not exclude injuries from a fall; the Court considered the accident hypothesis reasonably possible.

The appellant’s unexplained injuries could not independently establish guilt in the absence of proof that he had fought with the deceased.

It set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and directed his release unless required in another case.