Conviction cannot rest on circumstantial evidence when essential links remain unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

Durgesh, who operated a burger cart in Nalagarh, allegedly left his residence on the night of 20–21 September 2014 after being called to a birthday party at Bharatgarh by appellant Chanderpal. He thereafter went missing.

His wife lodged a missing-person report on 23 September 2014 and, on 27 September 2014, made a statement alleging the involvement of Dharampal and Chanderpal, resulting in registration of FIR No. 218/2014 under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants took Durgesh on a motorcycle, assaulted him with an iron rod, and threw his body and the weapon into a canal. Durgesh’s decomposed body was recovered on 28 September 2014; the alleged weapon was never recovered.

The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including call-detail records, alleged recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements, recovery of blood-stained clothes, medical evidence and motive.

The Trial Court convicted both appellants under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 364 and 201 IPC, with fines.

Whether the prosecution established, beyond reasonable doubt, a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving that the appellants abducted and murdered Durgesh and caused disappearance of evidence under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

Whether the call-detail records relied upon to connect Chanderpal with the deceased were legally admissible and sufficient to prove the alleged telephone call.

Whether the motorcycle, alleged spot recoveries, chappal, glasses, blood-stained soil and stones, and the appellants’ disclosure statements were legally proved and admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Whether the recovery of blood-stained clothes, medical evidence, forensic evidence and alleged motive sufficiently connected the appellants with the murder.

The Court applied Sections 302, 364, 201 and 34 IPC concerning murder, kidnapping or abduction, causing disappearance of evidence, and common intention.

Since the case rested on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was required to prove every incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and establish a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra and Brajendrasingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Suspicion, however strong, could not substitute legal proof.

Under Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act, confessional statements made to police were inadmissible, except for that limited portion of information which distinctly led to the discovery of a relevant fact; the prosecution also had to prove an actual discovery and its connection with the crime.

Electronic call-detail records produced as secondary evidence required compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, including the requisite certificate, under Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.

Motive was merely a circumstance and could not, by itself, establish authorship of the crime.

The Court held that the call-detail records could not be relied upon because they were unsupported by the mandatory Section 65-B certificate, and the prosecution had also failed to establish that Chanderpal was the subscriber or user of the relevant number; the wife’s oral testimony contained material variations.

Recovery of the motorcycle did not establish that it was in the appellants’ possession or that they had used it to transport the deceased.

The alleged disclosure statements were confessional in character and inadmissible under Section 25; moreover, the chappal, glasses, stones and soil were not recovered in a manner consonant with the disclosures, and one recovery witness did not support the prosecution.

The forensic report did not connect the blood on the appellants’ clothes with the deceased.

Although the post-mortem established death from a head injury, the iron rod was not recovered or shown to the medical officer, and the forensic examination did not establish alcohol consumption as alleged by the prosecution.

The alleged business rivalry was also not proved by reliable evidence.

Consequently, the essential links in the circumstantial chain were absent, and the remaining evidence raised, at most, suspicion rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23 October 2019 were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith.

Any deposited fine was directed to be refunded after expiry of the limitation period, subject to further orders of the Supreme Court.

The appellants were also directed to furnish bail bonds of ₹25,000 each with one surety under Section 437-A CrPC, effective for six months.