Broken circumstantial chain and electronic records without Section 65-B certification mandate acquittal in murder trial.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, on 10.09.2024, for the double murder of Vipulbhai and his mother, Kanchanben, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and was awarded the death penalty.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had an illicit affair with Vipulbhai’s wife, Sujata (PW-30). On 03.06.2017, the appellant allegedly killed Kanchanben with an axe following a dispute over Sujata being sent to her parental home; he subsequently killed Vipulbhai when the latter discovered the crime.

The prosecution claimed the appellant remained in the house until early morning, wrapped the bodies in polythene, and later hid the weapons (axe and knife) in an electric box at Shriram Hospital, where he worked as a compounder.

The trial court based the conviction on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, discovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and CCTV footage from the hospital.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence so conclusive as to exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

2. Whether the "reconstruction of crime scene" panchnama and the alleged confessional statements made therein are admissible as substantial evidence.

3. Whether the recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was legally proved despite the panch witnesses turning hostile and the Investigating Officer failing to depose the exact words of the disclosure.

4. Whether the CCTV footage provided via a pen drive was admissible without the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court applied the "Panchsheel Principles" of circumstantial evidence established in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. and Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which require that the chain of evidence must be so complete as to show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.

It relied on Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act to exclude confessions made to police officers in custody.

Regarding Section 27, it applied Subramanya v. State of Karnataka and Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, requiring the exact words of the accused's disclosure to be deposed by the Investigating Officer.

For electronic evidence, the court applied the mandatory certification requirement under Section 65-B(4) as settled in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.

It further noted the limited evidentiary value of police statements under Sections 161 and 162 CrPC per Kali Ram v. State of H.P.

The High Court found that the trial court's reliance on the "last seen" theory was flawed because the relevant witness, Amit Rana (PW-16), turned hostile and denied seeing the accused; the trial court erred by treating his Section 161 CrPC police statement as substantive evidence.

The court held that the "reconstruction panchnama" (Exh. 49) was inadmissible as it was essentially a confession made to police while in custody, hit by Sections 25 and 26.

Regarding the discovery of weapons (Section 27), the Court observed that the Investigating Officer (PW-36) failed to depose the exact voluntary disclosure words used by the accused, and since the panch witnesses (PW-13) also turned hostile, the recovery was not proved in accordance with law.

The CCTV footage in the pen drive was discarded because no Section 65-B(4) certificate was produced, making it inadmissible secondary evidence.

The court noted that the motive—the alleged illicit affair—was not established as the close relatives and the wife herself (PW-30) did not support the prosecution's claim.

The court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.

The judgment of conviction and the order of death sentence dated 10.09.2024 were set aside.

The appellant-accused was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith.

The Death Reference (Criminal Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2024) was rejected.