Unsigned Section 164 confessions and electronic evidence lacking Section 65-B certification cannot sustain a criminal conviction.

The victim, a female child aged 22 months, went missing from her home in Thane on 20.08.2013

Investigation suggested that A-1 and A-2 kidnapped the girl and abandoned her at Platform No. 10 of the Thane Railway Station

CCTV footage allegedly showed an unknown person (later identified as the Appellant) taking the child into custody

PW.3 (a Police Naik) claimed to have seen the Appellant with the child at the station

In July 2014, the Appellant was arrested and initially confessed that he had handed the child to A-4 in Panvel

A girl found with A-4 was identified by the parents (PW.1 and PW.2) as the victim, but DNA testing later proved the child was actually A-4’s biological daughter

Following this failure, the Appellant gave a second confession stating he had raped and murdered the victim near a Math in Kamshet under the influence of narcotics and threw the body into the Indrayani river

The body was never recovered

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 302, 363, and 201 of the IPC

The Court applied Sections 302 (murder), 363 (kidnapping), and 201 (disappearance of evidence) of the IPC

It strictly interpreted Section 164(4) of the CrPC, which mandates that a confession "shall be signed" by the accused, citing Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Abdul Razak Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra to hold that non-compliance is a fatal defect

Regarding electronic records, the Court applied Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the principles from Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State, requiring a mandatory certificate for the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence

It further utilized the "Panchsheel Test" for circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

The High Court found that the prosecution's case rested on inadmissible and unreliable evidence.

First, the photographs used to link the Appellant to the kidnapping were inadmissible because the prosecution failed to produce the original CCTV footage or a Section 65-B certificate, rendering the identification of the Appellant and the victim legally void

Second, the first confession was discarded as it was not signed by the Appellant, violating the mandatory procedural safeguard under Section 164(4) of the CrPC

Third, the Court noted the "dramatic twist" in the investigation: the second confession was obtained only after the DNA report proved the first theory (involving A-4) was false, suggesting police pressure to secure a conviction following a Habeas Corpus petition

Fourth, the "last seen" evidence was weak as no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and witnesses PW.3 and PW.5 identified the Appellant only through the aforementioned inadmissible photographs

Consequently, the chain of circumstances was broken, and the lack of corpus delicti remained unexplained

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the kidnapping or the murder beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the investigation appeared to be "managed" by the police to satisfy judicial scrutiny in the pending Writ Petition

The Court acquitted the Appellant of all charges under Sections 302, 363, and 201 of the IPC and ordered his immediate release from jail