Conviction overturned after Supreme Court finds no reliable evidence linking accused to body hidden in refrigerator

The deceased left home for Hyderabad and became unreachable. Two days later, his father (PW1) received a ransom call demanding ₹2,00,000 and deposited ₹1,50,000 into an account held in the name of Geetanjali. PW1 thereafter lodged a police complaint.

On the basis of alleged analysis of call records, the Investigating Officer apprehended A6, who allegedly led the police to a flat where the deceased’s body was found concealed inside a refrigerator and allegedly confessed to the involvement of A1 to A5.

A4 died during trial. The Trial Court convicted A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6; the High Court acquitted A2, A3, A5 and A6 but affirmed A1’s conviction, principally relying on the testimony of PW3 and A1’s failure to explain the presence of the body in the flat allegedly leased by him, invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The prosecution also relied on alleged ransom-related withdrawals, CCTV footage, call records, recoveries, the lease of Flat No. 402, PW3’s last-seen evidence and test-identification-parade evidence.

1. Whether A1’s conviction for kidnapping and murder could be sustained on the basis of PW3’s testimony, the alleged last-seen circumstance, and the supposed lease or occupation of the flat where the body was recovered?

2. Whether A1’s failure to explain the presence of the deceased’s body in the flat could, by itself, constitute an incriminating circumstance under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

3. Whether the alleged call records, CCTV footage, ATM withdrawals, recoveries and statements or disclosures attributed to A6 constituted legally admissible and reliable evidence connecting A1 with the offence?

4. Whether the prosecution had established a complete and reliable chain of circumstances sufficient to sustain A1’s conviction beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied the principle that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires reliable proof of each incriminating circumstance and a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the foundational facts; an adverse inference cannot be drawn unless the prosecution first establishes the accused’s connection with the relevant place or circumstance.

Electronic evidence, including call-detail records and CCTV footage, must satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act and be properly proved through competent evidence.

Confessional statements made to the police cannot be used as substantive evidence to inculpate the accused, and a disclosure or discovery allegedly made by an acquitted co-accused cannot, without independent corroboration, incriminate another accused.

Evidence regarding recoveries must also establish a credible nexus between the recovered material and the crime.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that A1 had leased or occupied Flat No. 402. PW3 did not satisfactorily prove his employment as a watchman, the ownership of the flat, the alleged entrustment of its keys, or the presence of A1 and the other accused; no lease deed, ownership document, visitor register or testimony from other residents was produced.

These deficiencies also undermined PW3’s last-seen account and made Section 106 inapplicable, since the foundational fact that A1 was in exclusive or established occupation of the flat had not been proved.

The call records were not proved through the service provider’s nodal officer and lacked the required Section 65B certificate; the CCTV footage similarly lacked proper certification and did not clearly identify the accused.

The money recovered from A1 and A6 was not traced to the alleged ransom payment, the bank account holder was not examined, and the relevant bank records were not properly proved.

Further, the prosecution case substantially rested on police confessions, and A6’s alleged disclosure could not independently incriminate A1, particularly after A6 had been acquitted.

Consequently, apart from proving that the deceased died from smothering associated with strangulation and that his body was found in a refrigerator, the prosecution produced no dependable evidence connecting A1 with the kidnapping, ransom demand, murder or flat.

The High Court’s order affirming A1’s conviction was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

A1 was directed to be released forthwith if still in custody and not required in any other case; if already released, his bail bonds were ordered to stand cancelled.