Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan
Supreme Court of India, 10 March 2026, 3 judges, 2026 INSC 217
The Court acquitted the appellant of murder because call detail records without a Section 65-B certificate were inadmissible and the recoveries of currency and a blood-stained shirt were unreliable, so the chain of circumstances was not complete.
Facts
The appellant and a co-accused were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara, in 2012 under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC for the murder of the co-accused's wife in his house in March 2010, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed their appeal in 2018, and the co-accused's special leave petition was dismissed in limine in 2022. The appellant, unable to appeal earlier owing to poverty, came through legal aid; the delay of 2749 days was condoned. The Court noted that the case against him, unlike that against the co-accused, rested on call detail records and recoveries of a blood-stained shirt and Rs. 46,000 made on his disclosure statements.
Questions before the Court
- Whether call detail records are admissible without the certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, when the nodal officers of the service providers were examined.
- Whether the recoveries of currency notes and a blood-stained shirt, with an FSL report matching the deceased's blood group, were proved and incriminating.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain establishing the appellant's guilt.
What the Court held
- Following Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the Section 65-B certificate is mandatory. As it was not proved, the call detail records were inadmissible and could not support the prosecution, although the State relied on the evidence of the service providers' nodal officers.
- The recovery of currency notes was doubtful because the amount counted in court differed from the seizure record, and mere recovery of money without a proved nexus to the crime is not incriminating.
- The recovery of the shirt was unreliable, and the unexplained return of the samples from the FSL broke the chain of custody, making the FSL report worthless. A blood group match alone does not link the accused to the crime.
- Applying Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances. The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.
Why it matters
The judgment applies the rule that a Section 65-B(4) certificate is a condition precedent to admitting call detail records, so that call detail records are inadmissible without it even where the service providers' nodal officers have deposed. It also restates that a forensic report depends on proof of an unbroken chain of custody, and that a recovery of money or a blood group match cannot by itself support a conviction on circumstantial evidence.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Admittedly, in the present case, the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] was not proved by the prosecution. In the absence of the certificate, mandatorily required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA], the call detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to support the prosecution’s case.”
“The entry made in the malkhana register (Ex. D-3) with which both the witnesses were confronted, completely demolishes the versions of PW.19 and PW.16. In this entry, it is clearly recorded that the muddamal articles were forwarded to the FSL on 12th March, 2010. Utter failure of the prosecution to disclose as to the reasons for which the samples were returned from the FSL breaches the unbroken chain of custody mandatorily required to prove the safe keeping of the muddamal articles.”
“Thus, the very factum of recovery of the currency notes comes under a grave cloud of doubt. That apart, mere recovery of currency notes, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing a clear nexus between the said amount and the crime, would not by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against the appellant-Pooranmal.”
“In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the guilt of the appellant-Pooranmal. Neither were the so-called incriminating circumstances proved by cogent and admissible evidence, nor do they form an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the appellant-Pooranmal.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 63 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 23 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 302, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 103 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 34, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 3(5) (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 201, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 238 (NCRB correspondence table)
Related judgments
- Follows Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)“This position of law was cemented by this Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer” (page 26)
- Follows Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)“Subsequently, this Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal15, reaffirmed and clarified the position laid down in Anvar P.V. (supra), observing that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] for admissibility of electronic evidence is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with” (page 29)
- Follows Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)“the salient principles enunciated by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra” (page 13)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1977 of 2026)
- Decided
- 10 March 2026
- Bench
- Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, N.V. Anjaria
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Sandeep Mehta, J.