Prosecution Must Establish an Unbroken Chain of Circumstances Leading Only to the Guilt of the Accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India, on January 28, 2025, delivered a landmark judgment in Chandrabhan Sanap v. State of Maharashtra (Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2015), acquitting the appellant of all charges, including murder, rape, and robbery, for which he had been sentenced to death. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence necessary for conviction, and thus, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.

"Not only is the test of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda not satisfied, but sustaining a conviction based on this sketchy and disjointed evidence would disregard the fundamental caution required in cases based on circumstantial evidence," the Court observed. The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, overturned the Bombay High Court’s confirmation of the death penalty, ruling that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, unreliable witnesses, and improperly admitted electronic evidence.

The case stemmed from the tragic murder of a 23-year-old woman, EA, who was last seen at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT), Mumbai, on January 4, 2014. Her decomposed body was discovered near an express highway on January 16, 2014. The prosecution alleged that Chandrabhan Sanap lured the victim from the railway station, took her to an isolated location, sexually assaulted her, and then killed her. The trial court convicted Sanap, sentencing him to death, which was upheld by the Bombay High Court. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court found significant flaws in the prosecution's case and ultimately acquitted the accused.

"Electronic Evidence Without Section 65-B Certificate is Inadmissible" – Supreme Court Excludes CCTV Footage

One of the prosecution's key pieces of evidence was CCTV footage allegedly showing the accused and the victim at LTT railway station. However, the Supreme Court categorically rejected this evidence, holding that the footage lacked the mandatory certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

"For an electronic record to be admissible, compliance with Section 65-B is mandatory. The prosecution failed to provide the necessary certification, rendering the CCTV footage inadmissible," the Court ruled. Citing Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Court reiterated that secondary evidence of electronic records must be accompanied by a valid certificate at the time of production in court.

Since the prosecution’s entire case hinged on the CCTV footage, its exclusion created a major gap in the circumstantial evidence chain. "The High Court itself observed that the CCTV footage was the axis of the entire prosecution case. With its exclusion, the prosecution’s case collapses," the Court observed.

"Last Seen Theory Must Establish Proximity Between Accused and Victim Before Death" – Witness Testimonies Unreliable

The prosecution relied heavily on the last seen theory, asserting that the victim was last seen with the accused. However, the Supreme Court found the witnesses' testimonies unreliable due to unexplained delays in recording their statements and contradictions in their descriptions.

"Witnesses (PW-20 and PW-21), who claimed to have seen the accused with the victim, gave their statements two months after the incident. Such an unexplained delay significantly reduces the evidentiary value of their testimonies," the Court held.

Citing State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam, the Court emphasized that the last seen theory can only be relied upon when the time gap between the accused and the victim's last sighting and the discovery of the dead body is so small that the possibility of another person committing the crime is ruled out. In this case, the victim’s body was found 12 days after she went missing, making the prosecution’s reliance on the last seen theory highly questionable.

"Test Identification Parade (TIP) is Invalid When Accused’s Photos are Widely Circulated"

The Court also rejected the credibility of the test identification parade (TIP) conducted on March 25, 2014, noting that the accused’s photograph had already been published in newspapers on March 4, 2014.

"In cases where the accused’s image has been widely circulated, the evidentiary value of TIP is significantly diminished, as the identification process becomes suggestive rather than independent," the Court held, citing Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala and Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy.

The Court noted that independent defense witnesses (DW-1 and DW-2), journalists from Mumbai Mirror and Mid-Day, confirmed that the accused’s photograph was publicly available before the TIP, rendering the process unreliable.

"Extra-Judicial Confession is a Weak Form of Evidence" – Court Rejects Confession to PW-9

The prosecution relied on an alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW-9, Nandkishore Sahu. However, the Supreme Court found the confession unreliable, emphasizing that extra-judicial confessions require strong corroboration.

"An extra-judicial confession is inherently weak and must be corroborated by independent evidence. In this case, not only was PW-9 an unreliable witness with a history of conflicts with the accused, but his statement also contained multiple contradictions," the Court held.

The Court further noted that the phone number allegedly used by the accused to threaten PW-9 actually belonged to a third party, and no evidence linked it to the accused. "The prosecution failed to establish that the alleged phone calls were even made by the accused, let alone prove that they were threats intended to silence the witness," the Court observed.

"Circumstantial Evidence Must Rule Out Every Other Hypothesis" – Supreme Court Finds Prosecution’s Case Incomplete

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must meet the stringent standard laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra:

The circumstances must be fully established.

The chain of evidence must be unbroken.

The circumstances must lead only to the guilt of the accused, ruling out any other hypothesis.

"The circumstances relied upon, when stitched together, do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt," the Court concluded.

Supreme Court’s Final Order: Acquittal and Immediate Release

On finding multiple gaps in the prosecution’s case, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and ordered the immediate release of Chandrabhan Sanap.

"We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case," the Court ordered.

This ruling reaffirms the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events leading only to the guilt of the accused. Any gaps or inconsistencies must result in an acquittal, upholding the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence – the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.