Call records without Section 65-B certificate inadmissible: Supreme Court

Jaipur/New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of an accused in a murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and that call detail records (CDRs) relied upon by the prosecution were inadmissible in absence of a mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

The Court emphasized that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be conclusively proved, and any missing link would entitle the accused to acquittal.

The judgment was delivered in Pooranmal vs State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1977 of 2026).

The appellant had been convicted by the trial court under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC (now corresponding provisions under BNS) and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution case against the appellant rested on three key circumstances: call detail records showing contact with co-accused, recovery of a blood-stained shirt, and recovery of ₹46,000 allegedly linked to the crime.

Reiterating settled law, the Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles and held that circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to guilt and excluding every hypothesis of innocence.

The Court found serious discrepancies in the recovery of currency notes. While the prosecution claimed recovery of ₹46,000, the actual amount counted in court was ₹46,145, which was not explained.

Holding that the recovery itself was doubtful and lacked nexus with the crime, the Court ruled that mere possession of money without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating evidence.

The Court also disbelieved the recovery of the blood-stained shirt, observing that it was highly improbable that the accused would preserve such incriminating evidence instead of destroying it.

More importantly, the Court found a complete break in the chain of custody of the seized articles, noting contradictions in police testimony and unexplained movement of samples before reaching the FSL.

It held that failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody rendered the FSL report unreliable and “a worthless piece of paper.”

The Court further observed that even matching blood group alone cannot link the accused to the crime without additional corroborative evidence.

On the issue of electronic evidence, the Court held that call detail records cannot be admitted in evidence without compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

Rejecting the State’s argument that examination of telecom officials was sufficient, the Court reiterated that the certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory precondition and cannot be substituted by oral evidence.

In absence of such certification, the Court held that the CDRs were inadmissible and could not be relied upon.

After analysing all evidence, the Court concluded that none of the alleged incriminating circumstances were proved in accordance with law, and the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain pointing to guilt.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, directing his immediate release.

Case Title:
Pooranmal vs State of Rajasthan

Court:
Supreme Court of India

Bench:
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice N.V. Anjaria