Absence Of Substantive Evidence And Failure To Adhere To Section 65B Evidence Act Vitiates Conviction: Supreme Court

"The I.O definitely was led by the confessions and failed to collect any substantive evidence connecting the accused to the crime." Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated September 03, 2026, held that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of confessions that are not supported by independent, substantive evidence.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the conviction of the appellant, noting that the prosecution's case was built on a "shoddy" investigation that failed to establish the foundational facts necessary for a criminal conviction.

Failure To Prove Electronic Evidence Under Section 65B

The Court observed that the prosecution relied heavily on electronic records, including CCTV footage and call detail records, without complying with the mandatory requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. The judges emphasized that in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, such electronic evidence is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused.

"The call records having not been properly proved through the Nodal Officer of the service provider and no certificate under Section 65B having been produced and proved, the entire story of careful analysis of the call records, falls flat."

No Reliance On Confessions To Inculpate Accused

The bench sharply criticized the prosecution for relying on confessions to establish the motive and the conspiracy behind the alleged kidnapping and murder. The Court reiterated the established legal position that confessions elicited by the police cannot be used to inculpate the accused, especially when they are not corroborated by any other reliable, independent evidence.

"We have to immediately notice that there was nothing to substantiate the above story but for the confessions, which definitely cannot be relied on to inculpate any of the accused."

Inapplicability Of Section 106 Evidence Act

The prosecution had invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the appellant failed to explain the presence of the deceased's body in an apartment leased to him. However, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the basic fact of ownership or the validity of the lease agreement in the first place.

Prosecution Fails To Prove Basic Foundation

Because the prosecution failed to produce any lease deed, visitor registers, or testimony from independent residents to corroborate the appellant's occupation of the premises, the theory of exclusive possession collapsed. The Court ruled that without proving that the apartment was under the appellant's exclusive control, the burden of proof could not be shifted onto the accused under Section 106.

"The absence of proof of ownership of the flat from which the corpus delicti was recovered and the employment of PW3 as a watchman in the flat, debunk the theory of lease to A1 and consequently reliance placed on Section 106 of the Evidence Act."

Absence Of Independent Corroboration

The Court further noted that even the "last seen" theory, as presented through a solitary witness, was fraught with inconsistencies and procedural lapses, including a compromised Test Identification Parade. The judges held that the entire circumstantial evidence chain was broken and failed to point uniquely to the guilt of the appellant, necessitating an acquittal.

Date of Decision: 03 September 2026