Absence of Section 65-B certificate and broken chain of custody render electronic and forensic evidence inadmissible.

The appellant, Pooranmal, and co-convict Ladu Lal were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Ladu Lal’s wife, Aruna, under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC.

Ladu Lal initially reported a staged dacoity, but investigations led to his arrest; his confession implicated Pooranmal.

The prosecution alleged Pooranmal was hired by Ladu Lal, citing three circumstances: frequent phone contact via Call Detail Records (CDRs), recovery of a blood-stained shirt with the victim's blood group (O), and recovery of Rs. 46,000.

The High Court affirmed the conviction in 2018.

Pooranmal, citing poverty and lack of legal aid, appealed to the Supreme Court with a 2,749-day delay, which was condoned.

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of currency and a blood-stained shirt, was sufficient to establish an unbroken chain of guilt.

2. Whether Call Detail Records (CDRs) are admissible in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. Whether the prosecution proved the safe custody and "chain of custody" of forensic samples to rely on the FSL report.

The Court applied the five-fold "Panchsheel" principles of circumstantial evidence from *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*, requiring that circumstances "must" be established and exclude every hypothesis of innocence.

Regarding electronic evidence, it applied Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (Section 63 BSA), following *Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer* and *Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal*, which hold that a Section 65-B(4) certificate is a mandatory condition precedent for admissibility.

It also referenced *Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat* regarding the insufficiency of blood-group matching in isolation.

The Court found the chain of evidence broken on all fronts.

First, the recovery of currency notes was deemed doubtful due to a discrepancy in the amount recorded (Rs. 46,000) versus the amount counted in court (Rs. 46,145).

Second, the recovery of the blood-stained shirt was labelled "highly improbable," as the appellant had ample time to destroy or wash it.

Critically, the "chain of custody" for the shirt was breached; malkhana registers showed samples were returned and redeposited without explanation, rendering the FSL report unreliable.

Third, the CDRs—the primary link between the co-accused—were ruled inadmissible because the prosecution failed to provide the mandatory Section 65-B certificate.

The Court concluded that the prosecution relied on conjectures rather than established facts to bridge the "long mental distance" between 'may be' and 'must be' guilty.

The Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, acquitting Pooranmal of all charges.

It ordered his immediate release from custody unless required for another case.

The appeal was allowed.