WhatsApp Message Disowned by Witnesses Only Raises Suspicion: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder

On 09.02.2019 the deceased was found dead in an open field beside his motorcycle, first reported as an accident (para 3.1). Police relied on a WhatsApp message sent on the night of 7-8 February from PW-5's phone to PW-6 implicating the appellant, recorded his disclosure, and seized an iron rod, a screwdriver, a shirt and blood-stained soil (para 3.1). At trial PW-5 denied sending the message, PW-6 said he knew nothing, the appellant's two sons were declared hostile, and the doctor accepted that the injuries could result from a fall from a moving motorcycle (paras 3.6-3.12, 3.21). The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed his appeal (paras 2, 4-5).

A conviction on circumstantial evidence needs fully established circumstances forming a chain that excludes every hypothesis but guilt; the accused must be, not merely may be, guilty (paras 10, 10.1). No witness proved that the deceased was last seen with the appellant (para 10.2). The WhatsApp messages were not part of the same transaction under Section 6, as the time of death was not fixed, and Section 8 covers only the conduct of parties, the accused or the victim; even if relevant under Section 7, they show only that a message went from PW-5's phone, and with both PW-5 and PW-6 denying knowledge, its author and source remain unknown, so it creates no more than suspicion (para 10.3). One seizure witness said soil was collected only where the body lay, and no DNA profile linked the blood on the soil, rod or screwdriver to the deceased (paras 10.4, 10.5). The doctor did not rule out a motorcycle fall, and the deceased's substance abuse made the accident theory probable (paras 10.6, 10.7). Unexplained injuries on the appellant prove nothing without evidence of a fight (para 10.8).