Acquittal Upheld Where Gaps in Electronic Evidence and Improbable Recoveries Vitiate the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence

In brief

The question

1. Whether the prosecution established a conclusive link between the respondent and the mobile numbers/handset used to make ransom calls

The court held

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide "cogent, reliable and convincing evidence" to rebut the presumption of innocence

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Solan, was upheld, and the respondent’s bail bonds were discharged

01Facts

On 11.10.2010, seven-year-old Mohammad Sahil went missing from school in Solan

¶ 2

Ransom calls were allegedly received by the family between 27.10.2010 and November 2010 on various mobile numbers

¶ 3, 26

The police traced a mobile handset (IMEI ending 0290) to the respondent, Gulfam, via a chain of witnesses (PW4 and PW12) who allegedly used the device

¶ 6-7

Upon arrest, the respondent purportedly made disclosure statements leading to the identification of the kidnapping spot, a guest house where they stayed, and a canal where he allegedly threw the victim's body and school bag after throttling him on 15.10.2010

¶ 10-15

A notebook belonging to the victim was recovered near the canal 51 days later

¶ 15

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent, and the State appealed

¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the prosecution established a conclusive link between the respondent and the mobile numbers/handset used to make ransom calls

¶ 24(A) · ¶ 33

ii.2. Whether the disclosure statements and subsequent recovery of the victim's notebook were sufficient to prove the respondent’s guilt under the Indian Evidence Act

¶ 11 · ¶ 42

iii.3. Whether the contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the timing of ransom calls and the condition of the victim (cries heard after alleged death) vitiated the prosecution story

¶ 27-28

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code

¶ 22

Regarding electronic evidence, the Court applied Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, requiring a mandatory certificate for the admissibility of computer-generated records like Call Detail Records (CDRs)

¶ 30

It further applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the admissibility of information received from an accused in custody, stipulating that only the portion leading to a fresh "discovery of fact" is admissible

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 201

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161 Section 164 Section 173 Section 313

04Reasoning

The CDRs relied upon to link the respondent to ransom calls were not proved in accordance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, as they lacked the requisite certification and attestation

¶ 30

A material contradiction emerged regarding the victim's status: while the prosecution alleged the child was murdered on 15.10.2010, the family claimed to have heard the child's cries during ransom calls in late October or November

¶ 26-28

The "link" witnesses (PW4 and PW12) regarding the mobile handset turned hostile, alleging police coercion

¶ 34-35

The Court expressed grave doubt over the recovery of the victim’s notebook; it remained in perfect condition despite allegedly lying in an open, rain-prone area for 51 days, suggesting the evidence was planted

¶ 43-44

The identification witnesses for the guest house and the Kurkure shop also failed to provide consistent or credible testimony

¶ 39-40, 45