Uncertified CDRs, Broken Custody Chain: SC Acquits in Murder

Uncertified Call Records and a Broken Chain of Custody Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Accused

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for a 2010 murder in Rajasthan, holding that none of the three circumstances against him was proved by cogent and admissible evidence. The cash recovery was doubtful and unlinked to the crime, the shirt recovery was unreliable, the FSL report fell with a broken chain of custody, and the call detail records were inadmissible without a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (paras 33, 35, 44, 52-53).

Key holdings

Cash whose counted amount differs from the exhibit chit, with no proven link to the crime, is not incriminating (paras 32-33).

A blood-stained shirt hidden by an accused who was free to destroy or wash it was an unreliable recovery (para 35).

An unexplained return of samples from the FSL breaks the chain of custody and makes the report worthless (paras 42, 44).

Without a proved certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (Section 63 of the BSA), call detail records cannot be relied on (paras 49, 52).

The co-convict's failed petition did not bar the appellant's legal-aid appeal after a 2749-day delay (paras 5-6).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant and the husband of the deceased woman were convicted of her murder by the trial court on 8 February 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment; the High Court dismissed their common appeal on 16 March 2018 (paras 3-4). The husband's special leave petition was dismissed in limine in 2022. The appellant, unable to appeal owing to poverty, came through legal aid, and the Court condoned a delay of 2749 days, noting that the case against him, unlike the husband's, rested purely on recoveries and call detail records (paras 4-6). The prosecution relied on call records, a blood-stained shirt and Rs. 46,000 recovered on his disclosure statements (paras 10-11, 26).

Court's Findings

Testing each circumstance against the five conditions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Court found none proved (paras 27-28, 53). The investigating officer admitted that the notes counted in court came to Rs. 46,145, not the Rs. 46,000 on the exhibit chit, which put the recovery under a grave cloud of doubt; cash without a proven nexus to the crime does not incriminate (paras 32-33). The appellant was free until his arrest on 4 March 2010, and it was highly improbable that he would hide a blood-stained shirt in an iron box rather than destroy or wash it (para 35). The FSL report needed proof of the complete chain of custody, but the malkhana register showed the articles forwarded on 12 March 2010, contradicting both custody witnesses, and the prosecution never explained why they were returned (paras 36, 41-42). Following Karandeep Sharma, the report was a worthless piece of paper; following Allarakha Habib Memon, a blood-group match alone would not incriminate (paras 43-46). Following Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the call records were inadmissible because the Section 65-B certificate was never proved (paras 49-52).

Legal Principle

In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be proved by cogent and admissible evidence and the chain must point only to guilt. An FSL report needs proof of an unbroken chain of custody of the sealed samples, and call detail records are inadmissible without a proved Section 65-B(4) certificate (paras 27, 36, 44, 52-53).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The judgment read like a checklist for testing recovery-based convictions: compare the amount and description of seized articles with what is produced in court, and read the malkhana register entry by entry, since one unexplained trip of the samples to the FSL and back was enough to discard the report (paras 32, 42, 44). For prosecutors, the Section 65-B certificate for call records has to be proved; the State's reliance on the service providers' nodal officers did not save the records (paras 22, 52). The case also shows a legal-aid appeal succeeding years after a co-convict's petition failed (paras 5-6). Compare Kusumlal Sao on recovery, circumstantial and electronic evidence.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Applied Discussed at ¶ 27
Its five conditions for a conviction on circumstantial evidence (circumstances fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, excluding every other hypothesis, and a complete chain) were the test against which the Court examined each circumstance relied on against the appellant.
Karandeep Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 SCC OnLine SC 773
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 43
For a DNA/FSL report to be acceptable, the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody and that the samples stayed sealed and untampered until they reached the FSL; applied to hold the FSL report here worthless once the link evidence failed.
Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024) 9 SCC 546
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 45
Even if the blood group on an article recovered at the accused's instance matches the deceased's, that circumstance alone is not enough to link the accused with the crime; so the blood-group match on the shirt was not incriminating without other corroborative evidence.

View all precedents (5)

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 50, 51
An electronic record can be proved only under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, with the Section 65-B(4) certificate accompanying it, and not by oral evidence; applied to the call detail records.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 51
The Section 65-B(4) certificate is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic evidence and oral evidence cannot take its place; without a proved certificate the call detail records were inadmissible.