A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019) concerns an appeal against conviction and death sentence imposed for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman (referred to as EA). The prosecution case rested almost entirely on circumstantial evidence principally alleged last-seen CCTV footage from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, witness sightings, statements of a so-called friend who gave an extra-judicial confession, and recovery of articles purportedly belonging to the deceased. The Trial Court and the High Court sustained conviction whereas the Supreme Court, after a detailed reappraisal, found the chain of circumstances incomplete and the evidence sketchy and disjointed.

The Court emphasised the five golden principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence (as in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda), registered serious infirmities in the handling and admissibility of electronic CCTV evidence in the absence of a Section 65-B(4) certificate, rejected weak extra-judicial confession evidence, and discarded unreliable identification and recovery evidence. On cumulative assessment the Court held the prosecution had not excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and acquitted the appellant.

The judgment underscores:

(i) strict compliance requirements for electronic evidence,

(ii) the care required in last-seen and circumstantial cases, and

(iii) caution in relying on extra-judicial confession and unsatisfactory recoveries, especially in capital cases.

Keywords: Circumstantial evidence; Last seen together; Section 65-B certificate; CCTV admissibility; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda; Extra-judicial confession; Chain of circumstances; Recovery; Death sentence.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appellant was convicted for an alleged brutal sexual assault and murder of a young woman whose partly burnt, decomposed body was recovered near the Eastern Express Highway on 16 January 2014. The prosecution traced the deceased’s last known journey from Vijayawada to LTT on 4–5 January 2014; the father’s unanswered calls and the missing-person report led to discovery of the body days later. Medical evidence recorded homicidal death with head injury and smothering associated with genital injuries, although the post-mortem and chemical reports suffered gaps (no semen detected on many exhibits and some reliance on belated medico-legal queries).

The police advanced a circumstantial case: CCTV allegedly showing the deceased and the appellant together at LTT, eyewitness sightings of the appellant, an extra-judicial confession made to a friend, and recovery of items reportedly belonging to the deceased. The prosecution marked numerous exhibits and examined 39 witnesses; the defence highlighted multiple investigative lapses: parallel investigations, delay and defects in seizure of CCTV data, lack of Section 65-B(4) certificate for CCTV, poor chain-of-custody panchnamas (e.g., brassier), absence of semen on key items, late medico-legal clarification, and weak recoveries. Given the capital nature of the sentence, the Supreme Court re-examined whether the circumstantial chain met the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda test and whether procedural safeguards for electronic evidence were followed.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased, EA, travelled from Vijayawada to Lokmanya Tilak Terminus on 4–5 January 2014; father last spoke to her on 4 January when the train crossed Solapur. EA failed to reach her hostel and was reported missing; her partly burnt decomposed body was found on 16 January 2014 and identified by the father from a ring. Post-mortem (17 January 2014) described extensive decomposition, areas of burning, genital distortion and blunt injuries; final opinion after chemical analysis queries stated death by head injury with smothering associated with genital injuries. No semen was detected on several recovered cloth items. Police seized, among other things, a mobile phone, scarf, torn clothing and a ring at the spot.

Investigators claimed to have obtained LTT CCTV footage (05.01.2014, 04:00–07:00) copied to pen drives on 18.01.2014; prosecution relied on this footage and witness identification to assert the appellant and EA were last seen together. Witnesses gave mixed accounts of sighting the appellant near the station or near the scene; an extra-judicial confession to a friend and recoveries (a trolley bag, identity card, spectacles) were relied upon. The appellant was arrested on 02.03.2014 after parallel investigations and charged; trial courts convicted and imposed death penalty for Section 302 IPC; the matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the prosecution established sole hypothesis of appellant’s guilt on circumstantial evidence consistent with Sharad Birdhichand Sarda?
ii. Whether the CCTV footage was admissible and, if so, whether it reliably established last-seen together?
iii. Whether extra-judicial confession and subsequent recoveries are trustworthy and sufficiently corroborated to sustain conviction?
iv. Whether investigative lapses (parallel probe, delayed seizures, deficient panchnama) caused material prejudice vitiating conviction?
v. Whether death sentence was sustainable in light of evidentiary infirmities and procedural non-compliance in electronic evidence?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellant argued that the prosecution’s circumstantial case was weak — missing links, delay between last seen and discovery, defective identification parades, and unreliable witness testimony undermined the sole hypothesis requirement.
ii. The appellant pointed to procedural infirmities: absence of Section 65-B(4) certificate for CCTV, delayed copying from DVR (panchnama dated 18.01.2014 while DVR retention limited), failure to send footage for forensic analysis, and defective panchnamas (e.g., brassier chain-of-custody).
iii. Extra-judicial confession to PW-9 was uncorroborated, inconsistent and made under suspicious circumstances (PW-9 interacted with police); recoveries were unconvincing with lacunae in panchnama and independent witnesses.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. State relied on cumulative weight: CCTV footage (father identified EA in footage; others identified appellant), witness sightings, recovery of articles identified by father and DNA linking the deceased to her father, extra-judicial confession, and subsequent conduct (astrologer/puja) to build chain of circumstances.
ii. The prosecution argued that objections to Section 65-B could have been cured earlier and Sonu v. State and Shafhi exceptions permit retrospective remedy; reliance on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and related law was invoked.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court conducted a meticulous re-examination of each circumstantial link. It held that although death was homicidal and medico-legal opinion supported genital injuries, the chain of circumstances relied upon by prosecution was riddled with gaps. The crucial axis the CCTV footage was fatally weakened by procedural non-compliance: the prosecution failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) for the CCTV pen-drives despite being aware of the requirement and having obtained Section 65-B certificates for CDRs. The CCTV copy was taken on 18.01.2014 though the relevant DVR (DVR-II) had a 12-day retention window; investigators did not explain why footage was not shown contemporaneously to several witnesses who gave statements earlier, and the footage was not forensically examined.

Given Anvar P.V. and later pronouncements, the Court found certificate absence a condition-precedent for admissibility of electronic record; reliance on Sonu/Shafhi could not rescue the prosecution on facts of a capital case. Consequently the Court eschewed reliance on CCTV evidence.

With CCTV excluded, several eyewitness identifications and last seen assertions lost their lynchpin. The Court scrutinised witness credence: many chance witnesses were not shown the footage, some identifications were made long after (e.g., PW-27 on 26.03.2014), and the identification parade was vitiated by media exposure of appellant’s photographs. The evidence of the dog-walker and other sighting witnesses failed to form a reliable link to the crime. The extra-judicial confession to PW-9 was examined and held to be a weak, uncorroborated piece of evidence surrounded by omissions and suspicious circumstances (interaction with police), thus unfit to support conviction. Recoveries (trolley bag, ID) suffered chain-of-custody defects, incomplete panchnamas and lack of independent corroboration; the motorbike recovery also had material gaps (non-examination of key panch witnesses).

The Court emphasised the Sharad test: all incriminating circumstances must be fully established and point only to the accused; here the circumstances could be explained on other hypotheses and did not exclude reasonable doubt. In capital context, the Court underscored that technicalities aside, the prosecution must discharge the highest burden and any lingering doubt must tilt in favour of the accused. The cumulative result: conviction could not be sustained and the appellant was acquitted.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal propositions are:

(i) Section 65-B(4) certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility of secondary electronic evidence and cannot be dispensed with lightly, particularly in capital cases;

(ii) where CCTV is the backbone of a circumstantial case, failure to comply with best-evidence and chain-of-custody safeguards vitiates reliance on such evidence;

(iii) in circumstantial prosecutions the five fundamental conditions from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda must be satisfied the Court found they were not;

(iv) extra-judicial confession is inherently weak and requires independent corroboration;

(v) recoveries and identifications must be free from taint, prompt and forensically sound.

The interplay of these principles led to acquittal.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court reiterated doctrines already pronounced in Anvar P.V., Sonu, Shafhi Mohammad, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Sundar about electronic evidence, retention lifespans of DVRs, and the special care in death penalty cases; observed that courts should not be hyper-technical but must ensure fairness and opportunity to rectify defects where possible subject to gravity of the case and prejudice to accused. The judgment cautioned investigators to contemporaneously preserve, certify and forensically examine electronic material and prepare panchnamas at earliest.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Strictly obtain Section 65-B(4) certificates when collecting CCTV/other electronic extracts; preserve device metadata.

• Record panchnamas contemporaneously at seizure points (hospital items, clothing) and maintain sealed chain of custody.

• Show CCTV/exhibits promptly to chance witnesses and contemporaneously record identifications; conduct fair identification parades and avoid media exposure of accused’s images.

• For capital cases, treat every deficiency as potentially decisive; where possible, allow remedy before trial conclusion but not at appellate stage if that causes prejudice.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision is a robust affirmation of evidentiary rigor in circumstantial and electronic proof. It demonstrates that admissibility formalities (notably Section 65-B(4)) are not mere technicalities but fundamental safeguards ensuring authenticity and reliability. The judgment serves as a reminder that circumstantial cases require a seamless chain of proven facts that exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere accumulation of suspicious facts, identifications made belatedly, or weak recoveries cannot substitute for such a chain.

In capital matters, the Court’s reluctance to sustain conviction on sketchy evidence reflects the well-settled principle that mercy of law must attend to the possibility of wrongful condemnation. Investigative agencies must therefore prioritize contemporaneous preservation, certification and forensic examination of electronic and physical evidence, and courts must remain vigilant to prevent miscarriages of justice.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 473.

2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.

3. Navjot Sandhu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2005) 11 SCC 600 (discussed and overruled to extent).

4. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801.

5. Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570.

6. Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 310.

7. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., (2020) 3 SCC 216 (referral).

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392, 397, 201.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 63, 65, 65-A, 65-B (esp. sub-section (4)) .

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (investigative procedure references).