Supreme Court Reaffirms Strict Compliance with Section 65-B(4) for Electronic Evidence and Highlights Gaps in Circumstantial Chains

I. Introduction

This case, CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2025 INSC 116), arose from a conviction for multiple offenses, including murder and rape, where the Trial Court and the High Court had imposed and affirmed the death penalty. The Supreme Court of India was called upon to review the evidentiary record to determine whether the conviction was valid. The accused, following the discovery of a decomposed and partially burned body of a 23-year-old woman, had been tried and sentenced to death based largely on circumstantial evidence and electronic records (CCTV footage, call data records).

The Court carefully examined the procedural requirements set forth in the Indian Evidence Act for admissibility of electronic evidence and the principles guiding the evaluation of circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that serious shortcomings in the prosecution’s chain of circumstances, failure to comply with Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic evidence, and other doubts regarding last-seen theory rendered the conviction unsustainable. The Court therefore acquitted the accused.

This Judgment is significant because it reaffirms stringent standards for admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B(4) and underscores how crucial it is to link each piece of circumstantial evidence conclusively, especially in a capital sentencing context.

II. Background of the Case

The deceased, referred to as “EA,” was a 23-year-old working woman who boarded a train from Vijayawada en route to Mumbai on January 4, 2014. After her disappearance, her father, PW-26, alerted the police and eventually, on January 16, 2014, a decomposed body was found near the Eastern Express Highway in Mumbai. Through a ring and subsequent DNA testing, the body was identified as EA’s, and the post-mortem indicated a homicidal cause of death.

The prosecution claimed the accused, Mr. Sanap, had met the deceased at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) on January 5, 2014 and was last seen with her. Additional allegations included robbery, rape, and burning of the body to destroy evidence. The Court extensively discussed testimony from various witnesses (including taxi drivers, a parking attendant, persons who allegedly saw the accused, and individuals who spoke about his movements afterwards), as well as the role of CCTV records that purported to show both the deceased and the accused at the railway station.

The Trial Court convicted the accused of offenses under Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392/397, and 201 of the IPC, imposing the death penalty. The High Court affirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court’s review focused heavily on (i) the reliability of electronic evidence under Section 65-B(4), (ii) whether the prosecution had successfully excluded all other hypotheses of innocence, and (iii) multiple inconsistencies regarding the alleged last-seen theory.

The parties included the State of Maharashtra (Respondent) and the accused/appellant, aided by appointed counsel and private practitioners. Lengthy arguments and multiple exhibits, including forensic evidence, post-mortem reports, and witness statements, were submitted.

III. Summary of the Judgment

After a thorough review of the evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision. The justices identified severe gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence, particularly concerning:

• The admissibility of CCTV footage without the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The reliability of “last seen” witness statements, which were recorded belatedly and could not conclusively prove that the accused was the only person who could have committed the crime.
• Inconsistencies and implausible disclosures in the supposed extra judicial confession made to PW-9.
• Weak recovery evidence, including claims that the accused had retained victim’s items for two months without logical explanation.
• Lack of proper forensic links tying the accused to the victim’s death beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court stressed that in capital cases, each piece of evidence must strictly adhere to legal standards, and every link in the circumstantial chain must exclude all reasonable hypotheses except the guilt of the accused. Because these conditions were unfulfilled, and the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted and released.

IV. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court relied extensively on established principles regarding circumstantial evidence and the requirements for electronic records. Key precedents and doctrines that shaped the Court’s reasoning were:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: Stating the five “golden principles” for circumstantial evidence. The Court reiterated that the prosecution must ensure the circumstances lead exclusively to the accused’s guilt, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473: Overruled Navjot Sandhu on the necessity of strict compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic records. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this pronouncement, emphasizing the mandatory nature of a Section 65-B(4) certificate.
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1: This larger bench decision confirmed that the certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility of electronic evidence, reinforcing Anvar P.V..
• State Of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755: Discussed the narrow scope of “last seen together” doctrine when the time lapse and possible intervention by third parties could not be ruled out.
• Sahadevan v. State of T.N. (2012) 6 SCC 403: Reiterated that extra judicial confession is inherently weak, must be scrutinized with caution, and typically requires independent corroboration.

Collectively, these precedents shaped the Court’s approach: requiring airtight evidence and compliance with statutory protocols, especially in cases that could result in a death sentence.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Section 65-B(4) Compliance for CCTV Footage: The Court determined that the prosecution’s failure to file the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) rendered the CCTV footage inadmissible. Although partial reliance had been placed on the CCTV recordings to establish the accused’s presence at the train station with the victim, the lack of certification meant the Court had to exclude this crucial electronic record. Given that capital punishment was at stake, the Court rejected arguments that such procedural requirements could be relaxed.

2. Last Seen Together Theory: The prosecution relied on witnesses (e.g., PW-20 and PW-21) to show that the accused was last seen with the victim at the railway station. However, the witnesses’ statements were recorded weeks to months after the incident and contained inconsistencies. The Court found that this significant delay, combined with contradictory accounts, undermined the reliability of the “last seen” evidence.

3. Weak Extra Judicial Confession Evidence: An alleged confession made to PW-9 was central to the prosecution’s narrative. Yet the Court found major omissions in the statements, suspicious circumstances under which the confession supposedly arose (given the witness’s distant relationship with the accused), and no independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court deemed it unsafe to rest any conviction on that ground.

4. Post-Occurrence Conduct and Recoveries: The prosecution contended the accused had visited an astrologer, sought a “puja” for atoning sins, and disposed of the victim’s belongings. However, these claims were tenuous. Register entries from the priest (PW-16) were partially contradictory, no credible chain linked the sister’s premises to the accused’s possession of the victim’s I-card, and the date of discovery of a trolley bag in a different city was unconvincing. The Court found these recoveries and subsequent events insufficiently probative to close the chain of circumstances.

5. Homicidal Death Established, But Gaps in Linking Accused: While the Court accepted that the victim’s death was homicidal, it emphasized that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove every link in the chain leading to the accused. Here, the evidence failed to conclusively demonstrate the accused’s involvement without doubt. Thus, the high standard of proof for criminal conviction—particularly one involving the death penalty—was not met.

C. Impact on Future Cases

This Judgment carries several implications for both procedural and substantive aspects of the criminal law:

• Heightened Scrutiny in Death Penalty Cases: The Court emphasized that where the death penalty is imposed, procedural safeguards must be strictly followed, and the evidence must be scrutinized with extra caution. Investigators and prosecutors will likely exercise more care, especially where electronic evidence is pivotal.
• Stern Reminder on Section 65-B(4) Certificates: Lower courts have a renewed directive to ensure that any electronic record is accompanied by the necessary certificate, failing which it will likely be rejected. This ruling reaffirms Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, clarifying that no relaxation is permissible, barring exceptional circumstances recognized by law.
• Stringent Approach to Last-Seen Theory: Merely showing that the accused and victim were together last does not suffice without conclusive exclusion of any other possible perpetrators. From now on, investigative agencies must fill any temporal gaps and remove all contrary hypotheses.
• Extra Judicial Confession Verification: Courts will be more vigilant about confessions made outside formal channels, requiring independent corroboration and consistent circumstances—particularly where the alleged confessor had no special closeness or sense of trust with the witness.
• Improved Investigative Protocols: The Judgment highlights the pitfalls of belated witness statements, vague seizure panchnamas, and reliance on questionable recoveries. Investigating officers must maintain clarity on how evidence is collected and documented, and anticipate thorough scrutiny during trial.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act: This provision mandates that electronic records like CCTV footage or call data must be certified by a person responsible for its production, attesting that the data was reliably captured, stored, and transferred. Without this certificate, such materials are ordinarily inadmissible as evidence.
• Last Seen Theory: A rule of circumstantial evidence where, if the victim was last seen in the company of the accused shortly before the victim’s death, a presumption can arise that the accused was involved. However, the prosecution must show the time gap between last-seen and death is short enough to exclude the involvement of others.
• Extra Judicial Confession: A statement allegedly made by the accused to a person outside official authorities (e.g., a friend or acquaintance). Because it lacks formal safeguards, courts treat it as weak evidence, needing other corroborative facts.
• Chain of Circumstances: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each fact or circumstance must connect logically and conclusively to the next so that there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the events other than the accused’s guilt.

VI. Conclusion

In CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death penalty. The Judgment underscores both procedural and substantive principles crucial to fair trials.

First, it reaffirms the mandatory nature of section 65-B(4) certificates for the admissibility of electronic evidence. Second, it exemplifies the necessity for a robust, unbroken chain of circumstances in circumstantial evidence cases, especially where the highest form of punishment is in contemplation. Lastly, the Court’s resolution of the facts—pointing out belated witness identifications, inconsistent statements, compromised recoveries, and questionable confessional statements—highlights the importance of precision and thoroughness in investigation.

Ultimately, the Judgment demonstrates how courts must guard against placing undue reliance on partial or improperly validated evidence. In capital cases, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, and no conviction can stand where the prosecutorial narrative leaves unanswered questions or lacks critical legal compliance.