SC Upholds Murder Acquittal: Unproved Call Records (2025)

Unproved Call Records, Belated Last-Seen Witnesses and a Bare Threat: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Acquittals

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Rajasthan's appeals against the High Court's 2011 acquittal of three accused in a 2006 murder-conspiracy case from Jodhpur. Call records without a Section 65-B certificate or proof of subscribers, last-seen witnesses silent for over a month, a recovery without blood grouping and an exaggerated threat proved neither motive nor conspiracy. With no perversity shown, the acquittal stood (paras 25-26, 31-32, 35-40).

Key holdings

The High Court's acquittal of all three respondents stood; no valid ground justified reversing it (paras 38, 40-41).

Call records shown through a handwritten note, without a Section 65-B certificate or subscriber proof, were not proved as per law (paras 30-31).

Last-seen witnesses who stayed silent for over a month, one despite attesting the inquest memo, were rightly disbelieved (paras 23-25).

A bloodstained stole with no blood-group match, recovered from an accessible house, linked no one; the finding that it was planted was endorsed (paras 26, 32).

A threat alone, from a witness who improved on her police statement, falls short of proving conspiracy (paras 35-37).

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

On 23 January 2006 the deceased's son reported him missing, and his body was then found lying between two villages, hands tied with wire and face crushed, and a medical board gave antemortem strangulation as the cause of death (paras 5-9). The prosecution alleged that the three respondents, Bhanwar Singh, Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary, conspired, hired killers from Uttar Pradesh and strangled him at Hemlata's house (paras 15-16). On 10 January 2008 the trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, and Sections 143 and 201 IPC, imposing life imprisonment (para 2). On 14 December 2011 the High Court acquitted them, giving the benefit of doubt (para 3).

Court's Findings

The disclosure statement could be used only as far as Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits; its inculpatory narrative could not prove motive, which needed substantive evidence (para 17). The deceased's son and wife gave no evidence of motive against Hemlata (paras 18-19). Nothing proved the alleged invitation call; that required call detail records with a Section 65-B certificate (para 21). The last-seen witnesses saw only a parked scooter, not the deceased entering the house, and told the police over a month later, although one had attested the inquest memo; the High Court rightly discarded them (paras 23-25). The stole, recovered after five days from a house accessible to all, had no blood-group opinion; the hotel registers and the van linked no one (paras 26, 28-29). The call records were not proved: no subscriber evidence, no Section 65-B certificate, and a handwritten note whose writer was not examined (paras 30-31). Against Bhanwar Singh there was only a witness's threat account, an exaggerated improvement on her police statement, and a threat in isolation falls woefully short of proving conspiracy to murder (paras 35-37). Applying Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar, the Court found no perversity (paras 39-40).

Legal Principle

An appellate court may reverse an acquittal only if it is patently perverse, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or only the view of guilt is possible. Call detail records need proof of the subscribers and a Section 65-B certificate, and a bare threat does not prove a conspiracy to murder (paras 31, 37, 39).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The ruling shows how a circumstantial case falls apart when each link is not proved in admissible form. Call detail records need evidence of who held the numbers and a Section 65-B certificate; a handwritten note, without examining its writer, will not do (paras 30-31). Investigators should record last-seen witnesses promptly and obtain blood-group opinions on recovered articles (paras 23-26). For a State appeal against acquittal, the Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar tests remain the measure (para 39). Compare Kusumlal Sao on last-seen and electronic evidence, and Mallappa on appeals against acquittal.

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

Precedents Relied Upon

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 39
Its principles were applied: an appellate court may reverse an acquittal only if the judgment suffers from patent perversity, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or no two reasonable views are possible and only the view of guilt can be taken, and it must record findings on these factors; none was shown against the High Court’s acquittal.