Holding

A conviction based on sketchy, disjointed circumstantial evidence and inadmissible electronic records, without satisfying the five golden principles, is unsafe and must be set aside.

Summary

The appellant, Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap, was convicted of rape and murder of a 23‑year‑old woman and sentenced to death, based largely on circumstantial evidence, CCTV footage, witness testimonies, an alleged extra‑judicial confession and recovered items. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution's evidence satisfied the five golden principles of circumstantial proof and whether the electronic records were admissible without a Section 65‑B(4) certificate. It held that the CCTV footage was inadmissible due to the missing certificate and that the chain of circumstances was riddled with gaps, unreliable witnesses, and an uncorroborated confession. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was deemed unsafe. The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his release. The decision underscores the strict requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence and the necessity of a complete, unbroken circumstantial case.

Issues considered

The admissibility of CCTV footage under Section 65‑B(4) of the Evidence Act without a certificate.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented satisfies the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda’s case.
The reliability and evidentiary value of the extra‑judicial confession recorded by PW‑9.
The impact of media exposure on the identification parade and its validity.
The sufficiency of the chain of custody and recovery of articles to prove the appellant’s guilt.
The propriety of upholding a death sentence in light of evidentiary deficiencies.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 311, s. 313, s. 465(2), s. 91
Evidence Act, 1872s. 63, s. 65, s. 65-B
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 364, s. 366, s. 376(2)(m), s. 376A, s. 392, s. 397

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence. Headnotes† Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Admissibility and recovery – Admissibility of CCTV evidence – Requirement of certificate u/s.65 B(4) – On facts, conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 rw ss.397 and 201 IPC for rape and murder of the deceased and sentenced to death

Subjects

MurderRapeDeath sentenceCircumstantial evidenceFive golden principles of circumstantial evidenceSharad Birdhichand Sarda’s case on circumstantial evidenceLast seen together evidenceIdentification ParadeLaw on circumstantial evidenceEvidence of recoverySole hypothesis of the guiltAdmissibility of CCTV footageLife span of CCTV footageAdmissibility of electronic recordsSecondary evidence for adducing electronic recordsCertificate u/s.65-B of the Evidence ActInherently inadmissible documentRecoveryChain of circumstancesExtra judicial confessionGaping holes in prosecution story

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1041 : 2025 INSC 116

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap
v.
The State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019)
28 January 2025
[B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and
K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High
Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder
of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.

Headnotes†
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Admissibility of
evidence of witnesses and recovery – Admissibility of CCTV
evidence – Requirement of certificate u/s.65 B(4) – On facts,
conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302,
364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 rw ss.397 and 201 IPC for rape
and murder of the deceased and sentenced to death by the
courts below – Hypothesis of guilt, if established on basis of
the circumstantial evidence:
Held: There are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to
the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what
meets the eye – Circumstances relied upon when taken together do
not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the
chain is not complete – Test of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda’s case
on circumstantial evidence not satisfied – Sustaining conviction
based on this sketchy and disjointed evidence not justified – On
the available evidence, extremely unsafe to sustain conviction
against the appellant – Prosecution did not establish its case
beyond reasonable doubt – Certificate u/s.65-B(4) is a condition
precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic
record – When the prosecution was aware of the need for the
s.65-B (4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs,
no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV

* Author
1042 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

footage – No reliance can be placed on the CCTV footage, insofar
as an attempt was made by the prosecution to attribute that the
appellant and the deceased were last seen together based on the
CCTV footage, and is eschewed the same from consideration –
Evidence of the prosecution witnesses for the last seen together
as well as evidence of the prosecution witnesses for sighting the
appellant, fails to inspire the necessary confidence to clinchingly
establish the circumstances of last seen – Test identification
parade vitiated as the photographs of the appellants were all over
the place in the media – Evidence of the dog walker to establish
presence of the appellant in the vicinity of the crime unnatural –
He is not the witness in the last seen category, but only claims to
have seen the appellant under circumstances which are doubtful,
thus, his evidence is discarded – Also, the evidence given by
other prosecution witnesses do not constitute circumstantial
evidence having any nexus with the commission of the crime,
thus, totally discarded from the chain of circumstances – Extra
judicial confession of the prosecution witness-so called friend of
the appellant, by its very nature, is a weak piece of evidence and
is rejected – There are so many omissions in the statement of
the said prosecution witness, as also no corroboration in material
particulars – Evidence of recovery of articles also not impressive –
Furthermore, the prosecution not been able to answer the infirmities
pointed out – Thus, no conviction for the offence charged could be
sustained against the appellant – Impugned judgment set aside
and the appellant is acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – Evidence
Act, 1872. [Paras 49, 51, 70, 72, 75, 77, 81, 90, 104, 120, 121,
123, 124]

Case Law Cited
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. [2014] 11 SCR 399 : (2014)
10 SCC 473; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
[1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – relied on.
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru [2005]
Supp. 2 SCR 79 : (2005) 11 SCC 600; Shafhi Mohammad v. The
State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801; Sonu @ Amar v.
State of Haryana [2017] 8 SCR 151 : (2017) 8 SCC 570; Arjun
Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. [2020] 7
SCR 180 : (2020) 3 SCC 216; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. [2020] 7 SCR 180 : (2020) 7 SCC 1;
Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police [2023] 5
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1043

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

SCR 1016 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 310; Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v.
State (NCT of Delhi) [2022] 7 SCR 792 : (2023) 3 SCC 654; State
of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. [2007] 3 SCR 507 : (2007) 3
SCC 755; Anjan Kumar Sarma & Ors. Vs. State of Assam [2017]
3 SCR 991 : (2017) 14 SCC 359; Suryamoorthi and Another v.
Govindaswamy and Others (1989) 3 SCC 24; Gireesan Nair &
Ors. v. State of Kerala [2022] 8 SCR 599 : (2023) 1 SCC 180;
Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra (2008)
3 SCC 210; Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. [2023] 2 SCR
20 : (2023) 6 SCC 605; Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of T.N. [1988]
3 SCR 706 : (1988) 3 SCC 319; Hanumant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091 : AIR 1952 SC 343 – referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

List of Keywords
Murder; Rape; Death sentence; Circumstantial evidence; Five
golden principles of circumstantial evidence; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda’s case on circumstantial evidence; Last seen together
evidence; Identification Parade; Law on circumstantial evidence;
Evidence of recovery; Sole hypothesis of the guilt; Admissibility
of CCTV footage; Life span of CCTV footage; Admissibility of
electronic records; Secondary evidence for adducing electronic
records; Certificate u/s.65-B of the Evidence Act; Inherently
inadmissible document; Recovery; Chain of circumstances; Extra
judicial confession; Gaping holes in prosecution story.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
879 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in CCN No. 3 of 2015

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shri Singh, Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Ms. Sakshi Jain, Ms. Surabhi
Vaya, Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer.
1044 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Advs. for the Respondent:
Raja Thakare, A.S.G., Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh
Dubey.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 20.12.2018 in
Confirmation Case no. 3 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of
2015. By the said judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction
and the sentence of death imposed on the appellant by the Court
of Sessions for Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial
Court’) in Sessions Case No. 388 of 2014 and consequently dismissed
the criminal appeal filed by the appellant. The Trial Court convicted
the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364,
366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with Section 397 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). For the offences punishable;
under Section 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to death; under
Section 364 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
one year; under Section 366 IPC, a sentence of ten years RI and to
pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default RI for one year; under Section
376(2)(m) IPC, a sentence of RI for ten years; under Section 376A
IPC, RI for life which was to mean imprisonment for remainder of his
natural life; under Section 392 read with 397 IPC, a sentence of RI
for seven years and under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to
RI of seven years. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The
appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation
to be payable to the parents of the deceased.

The case of the Prosecution:-
2. The deceased is a 23 year old young woman (hereinafter referred
to as ‘EA’ in the judgment). PW-26 Singavarapa Jonathan Surendra
Prasad is the father of the deceased EA. According to the prosecution,
the deceased, who was working in Mumbai and staying at the YWCA
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1045

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

Hostel for Women in Andheri, visted her parents at Machilipatnam
in Andhra Pradesh between 22.12.2013 and 04.01.2014. On
04.01.2014, PW-26 dropped her at the Vijayawada Railway Station
at about 05:00 AM. The deceased EA boarded Visakhapatnam LTT
Express which was to reach Mumbai early morning on 05.01.2014.
The deceased EA called her father at 09:00 PM on 04.01.2014 when
the train was crossing Solapur Station. According to PW-26, after
reaching Mumbai, EA did not contact him. He, however, constantly
made attempts to contact her mobile number but there was no
response. PW-26 contacted the YWCA Hostel where she was
staying, and he was informed that EA had not turned up. According
to PW-26, on 05.01.2014 itself, he lodged a missing complaint with
the Railway Police Station at Vijayawada. Thereafter, he took the
missing complaint and went to Mumbai. He along with his relatives
went to LTT Railway Station where the Railway Police told PW-26
that the case did not come under their jurisdiction and directed him
to go to Kurla Police Station.
3. Thereafter, PW-26 states that with the help of police they started
searching for his daughter and the last signal of the tower location
of her mobile was found at Bhandup. The anxious father continued
his search along with his relatives. Ultimately, on 16.01.2014, they
found the body of EA in the bushes near the Express Highway.
PW-26 states that the condition of the body was burnt and beyond
recognition. Based on a ring in her finger, he identified the body as
that of his daughter. According to PW-26, as the case came under
Kanjur Marg Police Station, he lodged a complaint therein for the
offence of murder and an F.I.R. (Exh.134) was registered.
4. PW-30 Dattatray Tukaram Naikodi is the Police Inspector who was
then attached to Kanjur Marg Police Station. He recorded the F.I.R.
and registered the crime bearing No. 6 of 2014 for the offences
punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC at about 08:15 PM
(information received at 5.45 PM) on 16.01.2014. He proceeded to
the spot and found a decomposed body of a female. He arranged
for dog squad and for persons from the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL). He made arrangements for lighting and conducted the inquest
Panchnama which is marked as Exh.84 and seized the ring of
yellow metal (Article 27) and thereafter he sent the body for post-
mortem. A spot Panchnama was also drawn in the presence of two
panchas. While PW-2 Bapu Mahadev Adsul deposed with regard
1046 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to spot Panchnama (Exh.38), PW-6 Nirmala Vilas Kadu testified for
the inquest Panchnama (Exh. 84). PW-30 further testified that on
the spot a mobile phone of Samsung company with two sim cards,
one grey colour scarf, red colour T-shirt, bunch of hair, one knicker
and one wrist-watch having a broken belt were found and seized.
He collected the blood samples, the grass and the mud from the
spot with the help of FSL persons. He deposed that the back portion
of the body and chest were decomposed and that the chest was
looking like half burnt. He deposed further that the leg was half burnt.
5. PW-25 Dr. Gajanan Shirserao Chavan, Assistant Professor, Forensic
Medicine Department, J.J. Hospital conducted the post-mortem
between 11:00 AM and 12:30 PM on 17.01.2014. The dead body
was received at 05:45 AM. According to the doctor, the dead body
showed a black colour brassier avulsed with metallic hook and a
pink colour hair band. Rigor Mortis was absent and variable mixed
pattern of decomposition was seen. Facial skin was burnt, there was
blackish adherent to skull bone; no maggots were seen, the genitals
were distorted due to decomposition and the vaginal wall showed
blackish, reddish discolouration. Limbs, hand and feet were absent.
He noticed the following:-

12. Extent, and signs of Va r i a b l e m i x e d p a t t e r n o f
decomposition, presence, post- decomposition was seen. Fascial
mortem lividity of buttocks, loins, skin burnt, blackish adherent to skull
back and thighs or any other part bone. Skin absent at some places of
whether bullae present and the extremities and abdomen exposing
nature of their contained fluid. bones and abdominal viscera at
Condition of the cuticle. places. Ends of long bones are
nibbled and exposed.
13. Features – whether natural or Natural separations seen at most of
swollen, state of eyes, position the joints without evidence of ante
of tongue, nature of fluid (if any) mortem fractures. No maggots and
oozing from mouth, nostrils or no foul smell. Features distorted due
ears to decomposition. Tongue absent,
Eyes sunken. No oozing of fluid from
eyes, mouth and nose.
14. Condition of skin – marks of blood Skin destroyed due to decomposition.
etc. in suspected drowning the
presence or absence of cutes
anserina to be notes.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1047

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

15. Injuries to external genitals. G e n i t a l s d i s t o r t e d d u e t o
Indication of purging. decomposition. Vaginal wall shows
blackish, reddish discolouration
at posterior wall, confirmed by cut
section. Swabs taken for CA.
16. Position of limbs – Especially of Limbs, hand & feet absent. Nibbling
arms and of fingers in suspected seen as mentioned in column No. 12
drowning the presence or right middle ring, little finger present.
absence of sand or earth within Nails of this finger showing bluish
the nails or on the skin of hands black discolouration.
and feet.
17. Surface wounds and injuries- 1) Contusion over LT-Left fronto
Their nature, position, dimensions temporal area 4 x 5 cm, blackish
(measured) and directions to be red colour
accurately stated – their probable
2) Contusion over lower lip right
age and causes to be noted
side against canines - blackish red
If bruises be present what is the in colour 2 x 2 cm. Both contusions
condition of the subcutaneous confirmed by cut section.
tissues?
(N.B.- when injuries are numerous
and cannot be mentioned within
the space available they should
be mentioned on a separate
paper which should be signed)
18. O t h e r i n j u r i e s d i s c o v e r e d No ante mortem fracture.
by external examination or
perlustration as fractures etc.
22. Opinion as to the cause probable Evidence of blunt injuries over body
cause of death and genital injuries seen. However,
final opinion reserved pending for
C.A. of samples.

6. The provisional cause of death was given as evidence of blunt
injuries over the body and genital injuries were noticed. However,
final opinion was reserved pending chemical analysis of samples.
After receipt of the chemical analysis report, final cause of death
was given as death due to head injury with smothering associated
with genital injuries.
7. Most importantly, the time of death was estimated to be 8-10 days
before the post-mortem date as no maggots or pupa were seen on
1048 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the body. The post-mortem date was 17.01.2014. The defence has a
case based on this that death would have occurred anytime between
07.01.2014 and 09.01.2014. The appellant also raised an issue about
the failure to draw Panchnama when the brassier of the deceased
was purportedly handed over in the hospital to PW-7 Bhausaheb
Suresh Mistry. It was only in the police station, according to the
prosecution, as spoken to by PW-14 Satyavan Shridhar Gawade,
that the Panchnama for the brassier was prepared. The stand was
that between the hospital and the police station, the brassier was
not in a sealed condition. It has also been the case of the defence
that PW-30 Dattatray Tukaram Naikodi admits to have not made the
handing over Panchnama of the brassier from the hospital and also
that the brassier was not seen mentioned in the spot Panchnama
Exh.38 or inquest Panchnama Exh.84.
8. The defence has also raised a grievance with regard to the final
conclusion in the death certificate (Exh.128) about the cause of death
being “head injury with smothering associated with genital injuries”,
contending that this was without any medical or scientific basis since
PW-25 admitted in evidence that there was nothing found in the
chemical analysis report which he was awaiting. The defence also
stated that there was no mention in the Post-mortem Report (Exh.127)
of forceful penetration and that a belated query letter of 28.07.2014
(Exh.129) was sent, in response to which three doctors including PW-
25 stated that injury in column 15 mentioned hereinabove could be
due to forcible entry of some article in the vagina and subsequently
due to decomposition, vide Exh.130, dated 14.08.2014.
9. Exh.130, which sets out the queries and the answers are extracted
hereinbelow:
“Sir,
The opinion on the following points with regard to the
facts mentioned in column No. 15 of the post-mortem
Report, as asked by you vide letter under reference are
given as under:
1) What could cause the condition of the organ, as
mentioned in the column No. 15?
Answer:- Such condition can be caused due to said
private part (organ) sustaining injuries before death and
subsequently due to decomposition (of its surface)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1049

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

2) Whether forcible entry of some article in the vagina
could cause the condition of the organ as mentioned in
column No. 15?
Answer:- Yes, on the basis of the entry made in respect
of the private part such condition can be caused due to
forcible entry of some article in the vagina.
3) Whether the condition of the organ as mentioned in
column No. 15 could be caused due to decomposition?
Answer:- peruse the answer given at Sr. No. 1.
Sd/- (Illegible) Sd/- (Illegible) Sd/- (Illegible)
(Dr. M.M. Jawle) (Dr. G.D. Nithurkar) (Dr.G.S. Chavan)
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Deptt. Of Forensic
Deptt. Of Forensic Deptt. Of Forensic Medicine Grant
Medicine Grant Medicine Grant Medical College,
Medical College, Medical College, Mumbai-08”
Mumbai-08 Mumbai-08

10. The defence also states that no semen was found on any articles
received from the spot or the biological samples of the deceased
since the chemical analysis Reports (Exh. 17 to Exh.34) indicates
that on the scarf, T-shirt, knicker with cotton pad, burnt cloth
pieces and in the partly burnt cloth pieces and grass, no semen
was detected.
11. Having carefully perused the evidence of PW-25 and the Exh.127 to
Exh.130, we have no reason to dislodge the findings of the courts
below that the death is homicidal in nature. The doctors have clearly
opined that the final cause of death was due to head injury with
smothering associated with genital injuries and clarified that injuries
to the genitals are possible by forcible entry of some article in the
vagina.
12. After the post-mortem, the body was handed over to PW-26 on
17.01.2014 for performance of last rites which were duly performed.
The Appellant has a grievance that when he was arrested, there
were parallel investigations being conducted by Kanjur Marg Police
Station and Unit V, VI, VII and other Units of Crime Branch between
16.01.2014 and 02.03.2014. According to the defence, all reporting
1050 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

within the Crime Branch was oral and there was no legal basis
for investigation by the Crime Branch till 02.03.2014, when formal
orders transferring the investigation were made. Accordingly they
contend that, as a result of this, the appellant was in a state of forced
ignorance about events from 16.01.2014 to 02.03.2014, including
possible exculpatory material found during the parallel investigation
by the Crime Branch. The appellant was arrested on 02.03.2014.
PW-8 Salim Mustaq Shaikh was the panch witness in the arrest
panchnama (Exh.90). He deposed that during the physical search of
the accused, one xerox copy of the letter in the back pocket of his
jeans pant was found and when enquired by the police, the appellant
told them that it was a Kundli (horoscope) (Article 28) prepared by
PW-17 Rajabhau Baburao Aher. We have discussed this aspect in
detail later in the judgment. The Crime Branch ultimately filed the
charge-sheet for the offences mentioned above. PW-38 Vyanket
Bhanudas Patil stated that investigation in serious offences parallel
investigation is often conducted along with the police station having
jurisdiction. The prosecution has submitted that parallel investigation
was about detection and not collection of evidence. It was further
submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant.
Keeping in mind the ultimate conclusion that we have arrived at, we
do not deem it necessary to delve into this aspect in great detail. It
is also not disputed that ultimately, on 02.03.2014, formal orders of
transfer were made to the Crime Branch. PW-38 further admitted
that he called for the opinion of three doctors marked as Exh.130,
after framing of charges and that at the time of addition of Section
376(2)(m) the said opinion was not there. He expressly denied the
suggestion that the report was planted since there was no prima
facie material for the charges. We are satisfied that prejudice has
been caused to the accused on this score. All the witnesses have
been examined only after all the charges were in position.
13. Between 16.01.2014 and 02.03.2014, investigation was carried on
and the prosecution claims that the pen drive of the CCTV footage
for the date 05.01.2014 between 4:00 AM and 07:00 AM were taken
on 18.01.2014 from the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus; then the father
of the deceased was contacted with the pen drive for identification
of deceased EA and statements of witnesses were recorded.
Chargesheet was filed after obtaining the FSL report for offences
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1051

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

mentioned above. At the trial, the prosecution examined 39 witnesses
and marked approximately 200 exhibits. The defence examined four
witnesses. DW-1 to DW-3 reporters and editors who are associated
with newspapers and DW-4 the official from the mobile company
who spoke of CDR details and marked approximately eight exhibits.
The appellant was examined under Section 313 and in answer to
the last question as to whether he wanted to say anything more, the
appellant stated that he was falsely implicated in the case and added
that in February 2014, the Kurla Police detained him for 15 days.
14. We have heard Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing pro bono,
for the appellant who presented the case comprehensively and
was ably assisted by M/s Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Pratiksha Basarkar,
Sakshi Jain and Surabhi Vaya. The prosecution has been effectively
represented by Mr. Raja Thakare, learned Additional Solicitor General
ably assisted by M/s Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh
Dubey and Ms. Yamini Singh. Both sides have submitted detailed
written submissions. We have also considered the submissions and
perused the records including the Trial Court records.
15. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. We are conscious of
the five golden principles enunciated in long line of cases including
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116, wherein it was held as under:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be
or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793] where the observations were made:
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict
1052 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is
long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.”
16. Keeping in mind the above principles, we have approached the case
at hand. The High Court has tabulated the following circumstances
to sustain the conviction in Para 40 of the Judgment:-
“(i) The deceased EA who was working with TCS Andheri,
Mumbai and a resident of Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh
has boarded the train from Vijaywada to LTT, Kurla on
4th January2014.
(ii) Phone calls made by her father to EA on 5th January
were not answered and she did not reach her hostel
located in Andheri.
(iii) A partly burnt decomposed body was found on 16th
January2014 near the service road of Eastern Express
Highway near Kanjur Marg which came to be identified by
PW no.26 as to be of his missing daughter EA.
(iv) The post mortem report establish that the death of
the deceased was homicidal and there was injury to her
private parts, thereby establishing that she was raped.
(v) The Inquest Panchnama and Post Mortem report
establish that the body was partly burnt and attempt was
made to destroy the evidence by burning the body.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1053

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

(vi) The accused consumed liquor at the residence of
PW no.12 in the company of PW no. 9 and then left his
residence by a motorcycle belonging to PW No.9.
(vii) The CCIV footage collected from the LTT Railway
station disclosed that the accused was loitering on the
platform at 4:50 am.
(viii) In the CCIV footage it is seen that the deceased had
accompanied the accused while leaving LTT and she was
last seen in the company of the accused in the footage.
(ix) The accused was seen near the spot on the Eastern
Express Highway with the trolley bag and a bag pack
belonging to the deceased.
(x) The circumstance of the accused seen along with the
trolley bag in the morning on the date of incident by PW
13 leaving the building.
(xi) The subsequent conduct of the accused i.e. going
to the Astrologer and performing a puja in order to wash
off the sin committed on a woman and the entry in the
register of PW 17 establishing that he has paid an amount
of Rs.3,000/- for performing the said puja.
(xii) Articles 22, 23 and 24 belonging to the deceased
were identified by PW No.26 came to be recovered at the
instance of the accused along with her articles i.e. identity
card, spectacles, her eye-liner, pencil and the DNA Test
confirm that it belonged to the deceased.
(xiii) The accused in his extra-judicial confession to PW9
had disclosed that he had poured petrol on the dead
body of EA and set it on fire after committing rape and
on killing her.
(xiv) The medical examination of the accused about his
potency test and mental health.”
We have, while marshalling the evidence below, kept each of
the above circumstances in mind. Few circumstances relied
upon by the High Court, do not figure in the tabulation. They
have also been discussed hereinbelow.
1054 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

17. Insofar as the circumstances elucidated hereinabove, circumstance
no. 1 to 4 pertains to the homicidal nature of the death of the
deceased after her travel from Vijayawada in the morning of 4th
January, 2014. We have already found that the death was homicidal
in nature relying on the evidence of PW-25 and the post-mortem
documents (Exh.127 to Exh.130).
18. PW- 26, father of the deceased EA, identified her based on the ring in
her finger. We have no reason to doubt his deposition. Notwithstanding
the challenge mounted by the defence, we are fully convinced that
PW-26 was the father of the deceased and, as such, we are not
inclined to disturb the finding that PW-26 was indeed the father of
the deceased EA; that deceased EA was dropped at the station in
Vijayawada on 04.01.2014 by PW-26; that deceased called PW-26
when the train was crossing Solapur Station on 04.01.2014 at 09:00
PM and that the deceased died due to the injuries mentioned by the
experts in the report.
19. PW-28 Shrikant Hanumant Lade also testified about the DNA
profile of PW-26 – the father matching with the paternal alleles in
the source, DNA of the deceased. His report is marked as Exh. 22.
He compared the DNA profiles from the blood sample of PW-26
and the DNA extracted from the sweat detected on Exh.1 - ID card
with belt, Exh.2-spectacles and the bone sample of the deceased.
Notwithstanding our finding recorded later on on the alleged recovery
aspect of the ID card from the sister, as far as this DNA matching
is concerned, considering that the DNA has matched with the blood
sample of PW-26 with that of the DNA profiles of the deceased, we
have no reason to doubt that PW-26 is the father of the deceased EA.
20. The defence feebly questioned the chain of custody with regard to the
blood samples of PW-26 and about the lack of underlying scientific
basis in the report and testimony of PW-28, the Assistant Director
of FSL. We are not impressed with the said submission and hence,
we reject the same, as we find no merits in the said submissions.
21. Insofar as circumstance no. 5, that an attempt was made to destroy
the evidence by burning the body is concerned, herein again the
prosecution must demonstrate that there was evidence circumstantial
or otherwise pointing to the involvement of the appellant.
22. That leaves us with circumstance no. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
Insofar as circumstance no. 14 is concerned about the potency and
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1055

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

mental health of the accused, that by itself again will not point to
the involvement unless other circumstances are made out. Hence,
what is really to be addressed is circumstance no. 6 to 13 pointed
out above.
23. For convenience, the arguments of counsel have been dealt with
while marshalling the evidence adduced by the prosecution in an effort
to prove the circumstances. The circumstances alleged had been
specified under the following order for providing a logical sequence:
i) The evidence of PW-1, PW-30, PW-31, PW-33 and PW-34 with
regard to CCTV footage collected from the LTT Railway Station
and its admissibility thereof.
ii) The evidence of PW-18, PW-19, PW-20 and PW-21 as advanced
to establish the sighting of the accused at the LTT Terminus
and also to establish last seen theory (PW-20 and PW-21).
iii) The evidence of PW-9, PW-12 and PW-22 with regard to the
events that allegedly transpired on the night of 04.01.2014 and
the morning of 05.01.2014.
iv) The evidence of PW-23 and PW-13 on the issue of alleged
presence of the appellant near the scene of crime and his
purported exit from the society building.
v) The evidence of PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17 with regard to the
subsequent conduct of the accused in going to the astrologer
and performing the puja at Nasik.
vi) Recovery of articles 22, 23 and 24 along with recovery of
identity card, spectacles, eye liner pencil from the sister (not
examined) of the accused and the alleged recovery of the
Trolley bag from PW-24.
vii) Alleged extra judicial confession to PW-9 and the alleged
recovery of the motorcycle bearing no.MH-03-AY-0241.

CCTV footage and its admissibility thereof:-
24. The prosecution has relied on the CCTV footage which, according
to them, was taken from the camera installed at the Lokmanya Tilak
Terminus to establish the fact that the appellant was last seen with
the deceased at around 05:00 AM in the morning of 05.01.2014.
To establish this fact, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Girish
Rajeshwar Mishra, PW-31 Chandramani Sitaram Pandey, PW-33
1056 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Vishal Bhaskar Patil and PW-34 Nishikant Vishwanath Tungare, the
Police Inspector.
25. According to PW-1, the data for 05.01.2014 between 04:00 AM to
07:00 AM consisting of the CCTV footage for that time was copied
in two pen drives on 18.01.2014. He has deposed that PW-31
Chandramani Sitaram Pandey searched for the particular date and
copied the footage to the pen drives and in this way the footage was
copied from the computer in two pen drives. In all 425 files were
copied, according to the witness. The witness states that he signed
the Panchnama and thereafter PW-34 Nishikant Vishwanath Tungare
sealed the articles and stamped it. Mr. Tungare told PW-1 that one
pen drive was for the court and one was for operational purpose.
The Panchnama was marked as Exh.36. In Exh.36 Panchnama
the following description of digital video recorder 1 and digital video
recorder 2 is given:
“Shri Chandramani Pande, acceding to the request made
by the Senior Police Inspector, Shri Tungare, gave brief
information in respect of the machinery installed in the said
CCTV Control Room. He said that there are 36 cameras
in Kurla Terminus area and the recording done by the said
cameras is seen on two screens, installed in the control
room. Now two screens are seen in the control room,
one of the said screens is of LG Company, the recording
by 16 cameras, seen on the said screen is stored in HP
Company computer CPU, attached thereto. They call the
said CPU as Digital Video Recorder-1 (DVR-I). Further, the
recording by 20 cameras, seen on the another Samsung
Company screen is stored in the i-ball Company computer
CPU, attached thereto. They Call the said CPU as Digital
Video Recorder-2 (DVR-2). The technician, Shri Pande
showed both the said computer CPU. The said CPU are
seen to have electric supply from the electric connection
in the said room and both the said CPUs are seen to be
connected with wires to two separate screens and to the
camera installed on platform.”
26. PW-31 Chandramani Sitaram Pandey is a CCTV operator doing the
job in the Central Railway in CCTV department since 2013. According
to his deposition, in one monitor, there are 20 cameras and in the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1057

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

other there are 16 cameras and the cameras are fixed on all the
platforms and rooms and the servers are kept in the control room.
He states that there was automatic recording system in the camera
and the recording is saved in the server. According to PW-31, in one
server there is recording of 12 days and in another server there is
recording of one month. After 12 days and one month respectively, the
recordings in the servers get automatically deleted and the footage
cannot be saved after the said period unless the footage is saved
in the hard disc. According to him, the footage of 05.01.2014 was
available in the CCTV camera and it was copied to the pen drive and
given to the police. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was
an employee of contract company Sonal Enterprises. The witness
further deposed in the cross-examination as under:-
“12....The limitation for saving the period is for 12 days
is in DVR - II. It is correct to say that under DVR II, the
recording of 16 cameras is done. I have not stated in my
statement that there is recording of 20 cameras in DVR-
II. I cannot say why it is mentioned in the statement. The
portion marked ‘B’ in my statement is not stated by me.
13. Sixteen cameras are from platform Nos. 1 to 5 in
DVR – II. It is correct to say that the cameras of DVR I
is located in outer side of the platform. It is correct to say
that 16 cameras which are mentioned in DVR- II covers
the half platform and the bridge. It is correct to say that
the limitation for saving the data in these 16 cameras are
12 days. I cannot say the date whether the police came
to L.T.T. railway station on 18/01/2014. It is correct to say
that the date of 5th March will be deleted on 17th March
at night automatically....
15.... Before 18th the police from Kurla police station never
contacted me. RPF also did not call me during the period
of 05/01/14 to 18/01/14. It is correct to say that any video
can be edited at any stage but not from the server. One
can edit the recording from the Pen Drive.”
He further admitted that he gave the recording in the pen drive from
the server. What is of significance is that the recording on platform
nos. 1 to 5 is in DVR-II where the life span is 12 days and also that
the DVR-I cameras are located in the outer side of the platform.
1058 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

27. PW-33 Vishal Bhaskar Patil, is Police Constable attached to
Lokmanya Tilak Terminus who was on duty in Railway Protection
Force. He speaks of CCTV footage being taken after the Senior
Police Officer met the officers of Railway Protection Force and
obtained oral permission. On a specific question whether there
was any fault in the CCTV server during the period 01.01.2014
to 08.01.2014, he answered that on 18.01.2014, there was a fault
and the server was not working and therefore Mr. Pandey was
called. He further stated that after repair, the servers were fine.
He further stated that on 18.01.2014, there was no fault in the
cameras of DVR-II.
28. Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel relying on Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 has raised objection regarding admissibility of
CCTV evidence. Before we deal with the admissibility, we would
briefly discuss the evidence based on the CCTV to see if even
assuming the CCTV evidence was admissible as to where it takes
the prosecution case? The CCTV footage was marked through the
evidence of PW-1 as Article 1 and 1-A being the pen drive and Exh.36
being the Panchnama for collection of CCTV. The CCTV was first
played before PW-26, the father of the deceased EA who testified to
the effect that it was his daughter in the footage who was entering
the platform along with a trolley bag and a sack on the back. PW-
26 further stated that in one footage his daughter was holding the
mobile and one man was driving her trolley.
29. PW-27 Hemant Dharma Kohli claims to be a neighbour in the building
where the appellant resided. He deposes that, on 26.03.2014, the
police asked him to come to the police station and he states that
the police showed him two CCTV footages and in one footage he
saw that the appellant was walking on the platform with one bottle
of cold drink in his hand and in another footage he was driving the
trolley bag. He also stated that the said person was the appellant
in both the footages.
30. PW-34 Mr. Nishikant Tungare is a Senior Police Inspector attached to
Kanjur Marg Police Station. He speaks of visiting the CCTV control
room and asking for the footage of 05.01.2014 between 04:00 AM
and 07:00 AM. He speaks of calling for two pen drives from PC
Jadhav and about the drawing of Panchnama and completing the
same by 07:15 PM. Thereafter, he deposed to the following effect:
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1059

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

“8. During the investigation, it was found that one person
who is working in salt office which is near the spot is
having some important information with him. Therefore, I
asked the team to call him in the police station. I called
him and I recorded his statement. His name is Prahlad
Yadav. On 05/01/14 Prahlad Yadav saw that one person
was trying to start his motorcycle near the spot. I recorded
his statement on 19/01/14.
9. I have recorded the statement of the ASI who has taken
the samples to the forensic lab. When I was watching the
CCTV footage in pen drive, I found that one person was
talking with somebody therefore I gave the instructions to
inquire said person. Said person was seen in said CCTV
footage for many times and he was having a bottle of
soft drink in his hand. After inquiry, I came to know that
said person was talking with the person who was the A.C.
mechanic of the railway and his name is Nair. I called
him in the police station, inquired him and I recorded his
statement on 22/01/14.
10. During inquiry, the investigating team found that said
soft drink bottle was purchased by him from one of the
stalls in railway staff therefore I called said person in the
police station and I recorded his statement. I inquired him
how he remembered said person, he gave the statement
and accordingly I recorded it.
11. During the inquiry with auto and taxi drivers, the
investigating team found that two drivers have seen the girl
whose photo was shown to them therefore I called said taxi
drivers and recorded the statements of two taxi drivers.”
31. PW-34 deposed that he went to Kurla Terminus for the first time on
18.01.2014 at 10:00 AM and he further stated that he did not enquire
with the persons from the Railway Station about the incident. He
however, stated that when he was in the CCTV control room, other
staff members were enquiring about the crime. PW-34 deposes that
he gave the copies of the photographs of the deceased EA to all the
investigating team members and that was a coloured photograph.
He however added that neither did he collect the photograph of the
accused after watching the CCTV footage nor asked for the sketch
1060 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the accused. PW-34 deposed that he did not show the CCTV
footage to PW-18 Shivkaran Chotelal Patel.
32. Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel vehemently contended that the CCTV
footage in no way advances the case of the prosecution. According
to the learned counsel, if the footage was admittedly from DVR-II,
the life span of the footage would have been only till 17.01.2014
and since admittedly the Panchnama was drawn on 18.01.2014 and
the pen drives were taken on 18.01.2014, the CCTV footage is not
reliable. CCTV footage, if available from 18.01.2014, was inexplicably
not used for identification by chance witnesses, raising doubts on its
seizure and veracity. According to the learned counsel, if the CCTV
footage had been obtained from 18.01.2014, there was no reason
why it was not shown to PW-18 Shivkaran Chotelal Patel (statement
recorded on 08.02.2014), PW-19 Surendra P.P. Nayar (statement
recorded on 22.01.2014) and PW-23 Prahlad Kumar Yadav (statement
recorded on 19.01.2014) to confirm that the individual person that
they saw on 05.01.2014 was in fact the same person seen in the
CCTV footage. In any case, according to the learned counsel, PW-
18, PW-19 and PW-23 only claim to have seen the appellant and not
the appellant and the deceased together. Equally, according to the
learned counsel, a serious doubt arises since PW-20 Ramesh Sonu
Rathod and PW-21 Ganesh Krishna Shetty were also not shown
the CCTV footage since they claim to have seen the appellant with
the deceased. No sketch or photograph of the person in the CCTV
footage was also prepared and the footage was also not sent for
forensic analysis.
33. According to the learned counsel, the CCTV footage will not
tantamount to “last seen together evidence” as identification of
the appellant and the deceased in the same footage has not been
proved. Learned counsel submits that no witness identified both
the deceased and the appellant in the CCTV footage and the two
witnesses to whom the CCTV footage was shown Singavarapa
Jonathan Surendra Prasad PW-26 (who identified his daughter) and
PW-27 who identified the appellant have not established the fact that
the identifications were in the same footage. PW-26 identified only
his daughter coming out with her bag and with an unknown person
on platform no. 4 of LTT Station and PW-27 saw the footage and
identified the appellant, in one footage with the cold drink bottle and
in another with the trolley bag but did not mention presence of any
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1061

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

girl, contends the learned counsel. Learned counsel contends that
PW-27’s identification did not inspire confidence as it was as late
as on 26.03.2014; that the police brought him into the picture and
nothing was there to establish that PW-27 knew the appellant as a
person who roams in the area. Learned counsel further contends
that PW-38 Vyanket Bhanudas Patil admitted that he did not collect
the address proof of PW-27. According to the learned counsel, it
is unclear as to how the police knew that the persons PW-18 and
PW-19 were speaking to the same person who was seen in the
footage.
34. We find that the infirmities referred to by the defence namely, about
the life span of the CCTV footage in DVR-II being 12 days; the
absence of identification of both the appellant and deceased in the
same footage by the witnesses; the absence of explanation as to
how the Police knew that the person PW-18 and 19 were speaking
to was the same person in the footage and other infirmities raised
have not been adequately answered by the prosecution in its
evidence. Learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Raja Thakare
painstakingly took us through the available evidence and objectively
placed the matter before us. However, from the material available on
record, these lingering doubts in our mind have not been adequately
addressed.
35. However, what resolves this issue against the prosecution completely
is the failure of prosecution to follow the mandate under Section 65-B
of the Indian Evidence Act, and the failure to produce the Section
65-B(4) certificate. Section 65-B reads as under:-
“Section 65-B - Admissibility of electronic records. (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any
information contained in an electronic record which is
printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical
or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter
referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to
be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this
section are satisfied in relation to the information and
computer in question and shall be admissible in any
proceedings, without further proof or production of the
original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of
any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be
admissible.
1062 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect
of a computer output shall be the following, namely:--
(a) the computer output containing the information was
produced by the computer during the period over which
the computer was used regularly to store or process
information for the purposes of any activities regularly
carried on over that period by the person having lawful
control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained
in the electronic record or of the kind from which the
information so contained is derived was regularly fed into
the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the
computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect
of any period in which it was not operating properly or
was out of operation during that part of the period, was
not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy
of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record
reproduces or is derived from such information fed into
the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or
processing information for the purposes of any activities
regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by
computers, whether--
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that
period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over
that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in
succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation
over that period, in whatever order, of one or more
computers and one or more combinations of computers,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1063

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

all the computers used for that purpose during that
period shall be treated for the purposes of this section
as constituting a single computer; and references in this
section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a
statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate
doing any of the following things, that is to say, --
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement
and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the
production of that electronic record as may be appropriate
for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was
produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions
mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of
the relevant device or the management of the relevant
activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of
any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes
of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be
stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the
person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section,
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer
if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and
whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human
intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; --
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any
official, information is supplied with a view to its being
stored or processed for the purposes of those activities
by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of
those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that
computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course
of those activities;
1064 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced
by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or
(with or without human intervention) by means of any
appropriate equipment.
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section any
reference to information being derived from other
information shall be a reference to its being derived there
from by calculation, comparison or any other process.”
36. Mr. Shri Singh learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that
when the CCTV footage was introduced as evidence through PW-1
on 28.08.2014, the judgment of this Court in State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v.
Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 was holding the
field. In Navjot Sandhu (supra), this Court held as follows:
“150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means
and includes, among other things, “copies made from the
original by mechanical processes which in themselves
insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with
such copies”. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of
the contents of a document to be adduced if the original
is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in
dispute that the information contained in the call records
is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved
and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has
also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from
the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified
by a responsible official of the service-providing company
can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify
the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak
of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective
of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B,
which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic
records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence
under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely,
Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing
the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in
the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary
evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such
evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in
the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.”
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1065

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

37. However, on 18.09.2014, in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
& Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 473, Navjot Sandhu (supra) was overruled.
In Anvar P.V. (supra), it was held as under:
“22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted
hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general
law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with
Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same.
Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will
always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court
omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65-A dealing
with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63
and 65 have no application in the case of secondary
evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly
governed by Sections 65-A and 65-B. To that extent, the
statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence
pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court
in Navjot Sandhu case [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot
Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] ,
does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to
be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way
of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence
unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied.
Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall
be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section
65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without
which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic
record, is inadmissible.”
38. According to the learned counsel, since the exhibits were marked
before 18.09.2014, the appellant did not have the benefit of the
decision of the Anvar P.V. (supra) when the footages were marked.
39. In Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
2 SCC 801 (delivered on 30.01.2018), a two Judge Bench of this
Court after noticing Anvar P.V. (supra) held that a party who is not
in possession of device from which the document is produced cannot
be required to produce the certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the
Indian Evidence Act. It also held that applicability of requirement of
certificate being procedural can be relaxed by the Court wherever
interest of justice so justifies.
1066 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

40. In Sonu @ Amar vs State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC 570, (delivered
on 18.07.2017) the following paragraphs being crucial are extracted
hereinbelow:-
“30. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder [R.V.E. Venkatachala
Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple,
(2003) 8 SCC 752] , this Court held as follows: (SCC p.
764, para 20)
“20. … Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of
evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not
subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of
documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:
(i) an objection that the document which is sought to be
proved is [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been
emphasised in original.] itself inadmissible [Ed.: The matter
between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] in
evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the
admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed
towards the [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has
been emphasised in original.] mode of proof [Ed.: The
matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in
original.] alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient.
In the first case, merely because a document has been
marked as “an exhibit”, an objection as to its admissibility
is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later
stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the
objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered
and once the document has been admitted in evidence
and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not
have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted
for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to
be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the
document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of
fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken
at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the
party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort
to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission
to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party
entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence
to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1067

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a
prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering
the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court
to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the
question of admissibility then and there; and secondly,
in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof
sought to be adopted going against the party tendering
the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of
the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof
and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite
party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such
practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of
the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the
latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection
amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal
proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to
be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case,
acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in
superior court.
31. It would be relevant to refer to another case decided
by this Court in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal
[P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, (1972) 1 SCC
9]. The earlier cases referred to are civil cases while this
case pertains to police reports being admitted in evidence
without objection during the trial. This Court did not permit
such an objection to be taken at the appellate stage by
holding that: (SCC p. 15, para 19)
“19. Before leaving this case it is necessary to refer to
one of the contentions taken by Mr Ramamurthi, learned
counsel for the respondent. He contended that the police
reports referred to earlier are inadmissible in evidence
as the Head Constables who covered those meetings
have not been examined in the case. Those reports were
marked without any objection. Hence it is not open to the
respondent now to object to their admissibility.”
32. It is nobody’s case that CDRs which are a form of
electronic record are not inherently admissible in evidence.
The objection is that they were marked before the trial
1068 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

court without a certificate as required by Section 65-B(4).
It is clear from the judgments referred to supra that an
objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to
be raised at the time of marking of the document as an
exhibit and not later. The crucial test, as affirmed by this
Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the
stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the
present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being
marked without a certificate, the Court could have given the
prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. It is also
clear from the above judgments that objections regarding
admissibility of documents which are per se inadmissible
can be taken even at the appellate stage. Admissibility of
a document which is inherently inadmissible is an issue
which can be taken up at the appellate stage because it
is a fundamental issue. The mode or method of proof is
procedural and objections, if not taken at the trial, cannot
be permitted at the appellate stage. If the objections to the
mode of proof are permitted to be taken at the appellate
stage by a party, the other side does not have an opportunity
of rectifying the deficiencies. The learned Senior Counsel
for the State referred to statements under Section 161
CrPC, 1973 as an example of documents falling under
the said category of inherently inadmissible evidence.
CDRs do not fall in the said category of documents. We
are satisfied that an objection that CDRs are unreliable
due to violation of the procedure prescribed in Section
65-B(4) cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage
as the objection relates to the mode or method of proof.”
As rightly pointed out by Mr. Raja Thakare, learned Additional Solicitor
General, it was held in Sonu (supra) that objection about Section
65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, not being complied, cannot be
taken at the appellate stage since that will deny an opportunity for
the prosecution or the opposite party to rectify the defect. It was also
held that the documents were not inherently inadmissible in evidence.
41. In this case, learned counsel Mr. Shri Singh contends that even
though there was no objection when PW-1 marked the exhibits;
question was put to PW-38 Vyanket Bhanudas Patil about the need
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1069

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

for Section 65-B certificate and its absence in the case of CCTV
footage particularly when Section 65-B certificate was furnished for
CDR report by the police. Relevant part of the deposition of PW-38
reads as under:
“It is correct to say that while calling the CDR reports, I
called the certificates u/s. 65-B of Evidence Act. It is correct
to say that I was aware that while collecting the electronic
evidence, the certificate is required. It is correct to say that
I have not collected the certificate for CCTV footage. It is
correct to say that I have not taken any authority letter from
railway or said company to show that Chandramani Pandey
has authority to handle the CCTV server. It is correct to say
that the papers which were received from the Kanjur Marg
police station, no such certificate was received.”
42. The deposition of PW-38, when this question was put, was recorded
on 18.06.2015 when the judgment in Anvar P.V. (supra) was holding
the field. The prosecution ought to have taken a cue and attempted
to remedy the situation. They have not done so.
43. We are dealing with a criminal case where the accused is being tried
for the offences which involve capital punishment. A court of law in
this scenario cannot be technical about the manner of objections that
are raised. Even though objection has not been raised specifically
when the CCTV footage was exhibited by PW-1, when PW-38 was in
the witness box a specific question was put to him and subsequent
to evidence, he deposed that he was aware of the necessity of
furnishing 65-B certificate while collecting electronic evidence. On the
facts of the present case, we are inclined to treat it as an objection
taken at the earliest point in time. Thus, when the prosecution was
aware of the need for the 65-B (4) certificate and they themselves
collected it for the CDRs there was no reason as to why they did
not collect the same for the CCTV footage.
44. The resort to Section 465(2) Cr.P.C. by the learned A.S.G. does not
impress us because according to us, objection has been taken at
the earliest available instance.
45. The Trial Court judgment in this case came on 31.10.2015, when
Anvar P.V. (supra) was holding the field and the High Court judgment
came when Sonu (supra) had been further reinforced by the judgment
in Shafhi Mohammad (supra) (delivered on 30.01.2018).
1070 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

46. The High Court pronounced its verdict on 20.12.2018. What is
important is that the High Court which also viewed the CCTV footage
had the following crucial finding to make:
“The CCTV footage obtained by the Investigating Agency
during the course of investigation and which was put before
the trial Court through Prosecution Witness No.31 is the
axis of the whole chain of circumstances relied upon by
the prosecution.”
47. A two-Judge Bench in a referral order reported in Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., (2020) 3 SCC
216 referred the following question to a larger bench:
“3. We are of the considered opinion that in view of Anvar
P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 :
(2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015)
1 SCC (L&S) 108] , the pronouncement of this Court in
Shafhi Mohammad [Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P.,
(2018) 2 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 346 : (2018) 1
SCC (Cri) 860] needs reconsideration. With the passage
of time, reliance on electronic records during investigation
is bound to increase. The law therefore needs to be laid
down in this regard with certainty. We, therefore, consider it
appropriate to refer this matter to a larger Bench. Needless
to say that there is an element of urgency in the matter.”
48. The reference came to be answered in the judgment reported in (2020)
7 SCC 1 by a three-Judge bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. The relevant portions of
which are as under:-
“45. Thus, it is clear that the major premise of Shafhi
Mohammad [Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2
SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC 807 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 346 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2018)
1 SCC (Cri) 865] that such certificate cannot be secured
by persons who are not in possession of an electronic
device is wholly incorrect. An application can always be
made to a Judge for production of such a certificate from
the requisite person under Section 65-B(4) in cases in
which such person refuses to give it.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1071

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

46. Resultantly, the judgment dated 3-4-2018 of a Division
Bench of this Court reported as Shafhi Mohd. v. State of
H.P. [Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P., (2018) 5 SCC 311 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 704], in following the law incorrectly laid
down in Shafhi Mohammad [Shafhi Mohammad v. State
of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC 807 : (2018) 2
SCC (Civ) 346 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2018) 1 SCC
(Cri) 860 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] , must also be, and
is hereby, overruled.
47. However, a caveat must be entered here. The facts of
the present case show that despite all efforts made by the
respondents, both through the High Court and otherwise,
to get the requisite certificate under Section 65-B(4) of
the Evidence Act from the authorities concerned, yet the
authorities concerned wilfully refused, on some pretext or
the other, to give such certificate. In a fact-circumstance
where the requisite certificate has been applied for from
the person or the authority concerned, and the person or
authority either refuses to give such certificate, or does not
reply to such demand, the party asking for such certificate
can apply to the court for its production under the provisions
aforementioned of the Evidence Act, CPC or CrPC. Once
such application is made to the court, and the court then
orders or directs that the requisite certificate be produced
by a person to whom it sends a summons to produce such
certificate, the party asking for the certificate has done all
that he can possibly do to obtain the requisite certificate.….
52. We may hasten to add that Section 65-B does not
speak of the stage at which such certificate must be
furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K.
Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 :
(2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] , this
Court did observe that such certificate must accompany the
electronic record when the same is produced in evidence.
We may only add that this is so in cases where such
certificate could be procured by the person seeking to
rely upon an electronic record. However, in cases where
either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where
such certificate has been demanded and is not given by
1072 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the person concerned, the Judge conducting the trial must
summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65-
B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such certificate
be given by such person/persons. This, the trial Judge
ought to do when the electronic record is produced in
evidence before him without the requisite certificate in the
circumstances aforementioned. This is, of course, subject
to discretion being exercised in civil cases in accordance
with law, and in accordance with the requirements of justice
on the facts of each case. When it comes to criminal
trials, it is important to keep in mind the general principle
that the accused must be supplied all documents that the
prosecution seeks to rely upon before commencement of
the trial, under the relevant sections of the CrPC.
56. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the
prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon
which reliance may be placed to an accused before
commencement of the trial. Thus, the exercise of power
by the courts in criminal trials in permitting evidence to
be filed at a later stage should not result in serious or
irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing exercise
in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out by
the court, in examining any application by the prosecution
under Sections 91 or 311 CrPC or Section 165 of the
Evidence Act. Depending on the facts of each case,
and the court exercising discretion after seeing that the
accused is not prejudiced by want of a fair trial, the court
may in appropriate cases allow the prosecution to produce
such certificate at a later point in time. If it is the accused
who desires to produce the requisite certificate as part
of his defence, this again will depend upon the justice
of the case — discretion to be exercised by the court in
accordance with law.
61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required
under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the
admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as
correctly held in Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer,
(2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1
SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] , and incorrectly
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1073

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

“clarified” in Shafhi Mohammad [Shafhi Mohammad v.
State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC 807 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 346 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2018)
1 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] . Oral evidence
in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as
Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.
Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor [Taylor v.
Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426] , which has been followed
in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be
applied. Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states
that secondary evidence is admissible only if led in the
manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would
render Section 65-B(4) otiose.
73. The reference is thus answered by stating that:
73.1. Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10
SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 :
(2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] , as clarified by us hereinabove,
is the law declared by this Court on Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno [Tomaso
Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Cri) 54] , being per incuriam, does not lay down the law
correctly. Also, the judgment in Shafhi Mohammad [Shafhi
Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801 : (2018) 2
SCC 807 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 346 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ)
351 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] and
the judgment dated 3-4-2018 reported as Shafhi Mohd. v.
State of H.P. [Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P., (2018) 5 SCC
311 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 704] , do not lay down the law
correctly and are therefore overruled.
73.2. The clarification referred to above is that the required
certificate under Section 65-B(4) is unnecessary if the
original document itself is produced. This can be done by
the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even
a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and
proving that the device concerned, on which the original
information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him.
In cases where the “computer” happens to be a part of a
“computer system” or “computer network” and it becomes
1074 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

impossible to physically bring such system or network to
the court, then the only means of providing information
contained in such electronic record can be in accordance
with Section 65-B(1), together with the requisite certificate
under Section 65-B(4). The last sentence in para 24 in
Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 :
(2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1
SCC (L&S) 108] which reads as “… if an electronic record
as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of
the Evidence Act …” is thus clarified; it is to be read without
the words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,…”. With
this clarification, the law stated in para 24 of Anvar P.V.
[Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015)
1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC
(L&S) 108] does not need to be revisited.”
(Emphasis supplied)

49. This judgment has put the matter beyond controversy. In view of the
above, there is no manner of doubt that certificate under Section
65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by
way of electronic record and further it is clear that the Court has also
held Anvar P.V. (supra) to be the correct position of law.
50. There is one more difficulty in the way of prosecution in this case.
In Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police,
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 310 this Court reiterated the holding in
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 SCC 654
and held that in matters pertaining to award of death sentence, the
case must be considered in the light of the decisions in Anvar P.V.
(supra) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra). So holding, the
Court in both Sundar (supra) and Mohd. Arif (supra), after noticing
the holding in Sonu (supra) eschewed the electronic evidence for
want of certificate under Section 65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act and
considered the matter. Paragraphs 44 to 46 from Sundar (supra)
are extracted hereinbelow:-
“44. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the ratio
in Sonu by not allowing the objection which is raised at
a belated stage that the CDRS are inadmissible in the
absence of a Section 658 certificate, especially in cases,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1075

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

where the trial has been completed before 18 September
2014, i.e. before the pronouncement of the decision in
Anvar P.V.. However, we are also mindful of the fact that
the instant matter involves the death sentence having
been awarded.
45. Most recently, in Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT) of Delhi, a
three judge Bench of this Court while deciding a review
petition in a case involving the review of a death penalty
faced a similar fact situation where the decisions of the
trial court and appellate courts were rendered during the
period when Navjot Sandhu was the prevailing law. In
that case as well, the Court took note of it being a matter
involving a death sentence and held that:
“24. Navjot Sandhu was decided on 4.8.2005 i.e., before
the judgment was rendered by the Trial Court in the instant
matter. The subsequent judgments of the High Court
and this Court were passed on 13.9.2007 and 10.8.2011
respectively affirming the award of death sentence. These
two judgments were delivered prior to the decision of
this Court in Anvar P.V. which was given on 18.9.2014.
The judgments by the trial Court, High Court and this
Court were thus well before the decision in Anvar P.V.
and were essentially in the backdrop of law laid down in
Navjot Sandhu. If we go by the principle accepted in
paragraph 32 of the decision in Sonu alias Amar, the
matter may stand on a completely different footing.
It is for this reason that stand on has been placed on
certain decisions of this Court to submit that the matter
need not be reopened on issues which were dealt with
in accordance with the law then prevailing. However,
since the instant matter pertains to award of death
sentence, this review petition must be considered in
light of the decisions made by this Court in Anvar P.V.
and Arjun Panditrao.
25. Consequently, we must eschew, for the present
purposes, the electronic evidence in the form of CDRs
which was without any appropriate certificate under
Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.”
1076 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

46. Accordingly, we too deem it appropriate to consider
this review petition by eschewing the electronic evidence
in the form of CDRS as they are without the appropriate
certificate under Section 658 even if the law, as it was
during the time the trial in the present case was conducted,
allowed for such electronic evidence to be admitted.”
(Emphasis supplied)

51. In view of the above, we are not able to place any reliance on the
CCTV footage, insofar as an attempt is made by the prosecution
to attribute that the appellant and the deceased EA were last seen
together based on the CCTV footage. We eschew the same from
consideration.

Evidence of PW-20 and PW-21 for the last seen together as well
as evidence of PW-18 and PW-19 for sighting the appellant:
52. Anticipating the problem that he might encounter due to the absence
of 65-B(4) certificate, Mr. Raja Thakare, learned Additional Solicitor
General tried to sustain the conviction by relying on the evidence of
PW-20 and PW-21 for having last seen the appellant and deceased
EA together and also on the evidence of PW-18 and PW-19 for having
sighted the appellant on the morning of 05.01.2014.
53. PW-20 Ramesh Sonu Rathod is a witness doing the job in taxi pre-
paid booth at Kurla Terminus for the last three years as of 11.02.2015,
the day he deposed. His statement was recorded on 20.03.2014, a
good two months and 15 days after the incident. He also participated
in the identification parade on 25.03.2014 and identified the accused.
He admits that on 07.01.2014 persons from Crime Branch came
and met him but could not identify as to who they were. He denies
the suggestion that he had disclosed whatever he knew about the
incident to them. He admits that thereafter he met the police only
on 20.03.2014.
54. According to PW-20, his job as supervisor involved the work of
looking after the workers and going to RTO for office purposes. He
deposed that in January there was a Sai Bhandara and therefore he
was collecting the donation from rickshaw drivers for Sai Bhandara
on 05.01.2014, while on duty from 09:00 PM on 04.01.2014 to 09:00
AM on 05.01.2014. He claims that on that day Visakhapatnam Train
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1077

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

came on the platform at about 05:00 AM to 05:15 AM, and he saw
one lady going with one man who was having trolley bag in his hand.
The witness deposes that he enquired whether the man required a
taxi and the said man told that he was having vehicle. He described
the man as having a broad moustache and was bald from front side,
about 5’5’’ tall and wearing T-shirt and blue jeans pant. He was about
35 years of age. He deposes that police came to enquire regularly
and used to pressurize the taxi drivers. He states that his friend
Ganesh Shetty (PW-21) came to him and told him that he visited the
police station and gave statement to the police about the said lady.
At that time, PW-20 said that he also saw that girl and was ready
to give his statement. Thereafter, he went with his friend to Crime
Branch on 20.03.2014 and gave his statement that he saw the girl
going with one person. On 25.03.2014, he speaks of the TI parade
held to identify the appellant. He deposes in cross-examination that
the drivers of pre-paid taxi never called passengers like normal taxi
driver and also that about 500-600 persons would get down from
the train and leave in a hurry. He further deposed that many people
were having thick moustache.
55. PW-20 claimed that he was watching them for two minutes from a
distance. He claimed that the girl was wearing T-shirt, jeans and
Dupatta though he could not say about the colour of the Dupatta and
T-Shirt. He stated that the girl was of 4’5’’ in height. He admits that
he came to know about the murder of the said girl on 05.01.2014
and was aware that the police was enquiring about the murder. He
admits that he did not mention in his statement that he was on duty
from 09:00 PM on 04.01.2014 to 09:00 AM on 05.01.2014. He stated
that the person showed on VC screen was the person that he saw
on the night of 04.01.2014 to 05.01.2014.
56. PW-21 Ganesh Krishna Shetty works in the pay and park place at
Lokmanya Tilak Terminus for the last five years. His statement was
recorded on 04.03.2014 nearly two months after the date of the
incident. He claims that police from Crime Branch came near the
parking and they were having one photograph of one girl and the
police asked whether he was on duty on 05.01.2014. When he told
the police that he saw the girl, they asked him to come to the Crime
Branch Office unit VII, in the evening. When he was asked as to how
he knew the girl, he said he saw the girl with one man. He further
added that the said man parked his motorcycle near RPF Chowki
1078 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

at about 04:00 AM to 04:15 AM and when he went to stop him, the
man went inside and thereafter when he followed him and asked
him to take receipt, the man abused him and told him that he was
a staff member and after abusing him in a filthy manner asked him
whether he did not know him as an RPF staff? Thereafter, the man
again abused him and went to platform no. 1. The witness adds that
he saw the person at 05:15 AM having trolley bag in his hand and
one girl was with him. He further adds that there was conversation
between the man and the girl for one minute; that the man took the
bike from the stand, put the said trolley bag in front of the motorcycle
and the girl was having sack on her back and she sat on the backside
of the motorcycle and he saw the girl since she passed from the
gate where he was standing and that she was wearing jeans and
top and having shawl like odhani (stole).
57. Thereafter, he deposed about going to Arthur Road Jail on 20.03.2014
and speaks of identifying the appellant in the identification parade. He
admits that the police met him for the first time on 01.03.2014 and
showed a passport size photograph of the girl. Again on 04.03.2014,
the girl’s photograph was shown to him. He admits that the police
asked him to give the list of vehicles which were parked in the
parking area on the night of 04.01.2014 to 05.01.2014. He further
deposed that he used to put the number when the vehicle entered
the parking place. He however deposed that since the receipt of the
vehicle of the accused was not prepared, he did not mention the
number on any receipt. He admits that no action or complaint was
lodged against the appellant for not paying parking charges and did
not try to catch him.
58. He however states that when he met PW-20 Ramesh Rathod, he did
not tell him that he went to the police and did not talk with Ramesh
about the recording of his statement. He states that the passage of
exit was 2.5 feet and passage was always crowded after the arrival
of train and further added that if two persons pass together, it is not
necessary that they have arrived together.
59. Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel for appellant mounts a scathing attack
on the evidence of PW-20 and PW-21 labelling them as unreliable
witnesses. Learned counsel submits that PW-21’s statement was
recorded on 04.03.2014 and PW-20’s statement was recorded on
20.03.2014 about two to two and a half months after the incident.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1079

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

In the meantime, the appellant had been arrested on 02.03.2014.
According to the learned counsel, the delay was inexplicable since
the police had been patrolling the station and making enquiry since
16.01.2014. Learned Counsel submits that both PW-20 and PW-21
admit to being approached by the police earlier prior to the appellant’s
arrest. While the Crime Branch enquired with PW-20 for half an hour
on 07.01.2014, it enquired from PW-21 on 01.03.2014. Nothing was
disclosed about seeing the deceased or the appellant at that time
by these two witnesses.
60. Learned counsel draws pointed attention to the deposition of PW-
20 about the pressure exerted by the police on taxi drivers and
further about PW-20 giving the statement only after PW-21 told him
and PW-21 contradicting this fact. The remarkable similarity in the
descriptions of the appellant by PW-20 and PW-21 even though
they were speaking of it after a considerable lapse of time, came in
for some pointed criticism by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel submits that the identification parade holds no value
as the photo of the appellant was widely circulated in the media by
04.03.2014 including grainy stills from the alleged CCTV footage.
61. According to the learned counsel, DW-1 Abhijeet D. Sathye who was
then working with the Mumbai Mirror as a Senior Assistant Editor
Exhibited Article 40 ‘the extract of the Mumbai Mirror newspaper
dated 04.03.2014’ which published the photograph of the appellant.
Equally, DW-2 Shiva S. Devnath, the reporter of Mid Day Newspaper
admitted to have published the photograph of the accused on
the 04.03.2014 edition. The witnesses claimed that they received
the photographs from secret sources. In view of this, the learned
counsel for the appellant contended that the identification parade
on 25.03.2014 was not only belated but wholly unreliable. Further,
learned counsel submits that PW-20 and PW-21 did not identify the
deceased via any photo in the Court. While PW-20 was not shown
the photograph of the deceased, PW-21 though stated that he was
shown the photograph, the same was not proved and no memo of
identification was drawn up. We will revert to these witnesses after
discussing the evidence of PW-18 Shivkaran Chotelal Patel and
PW-19 Surendra Nayar for a comprehensive analysis.
62. PW-18 Shivkaran Chotelal Patel works in the canteen at Kurla
Terminus since 24.12.2013. According to him, the stall where he was
1080 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

working was at platform no. 4 and 5 facing towards Kalyan Railway
Station. He deposes that on 08.02.2014, the Kanjur Marg Police came
to him. The police asked him whether any person came to him for
purchasing cold drink or water on 05.01.2014. He deposes that he
told that thousands of people come to him and as to how could he
tell them as to who came. He states thereafter that he remembered
that on 05.01.2014 one person came to him after opening the stall
and he purchased thums-up for Rs. 34/-; that the said person gave
him currency note of Rs. 100/-; that he asked him to give change
of Rs. 4/-; that he was not having change of Rs. 4/- therefore he
gave chocolate. The witness deposes that at that time the person
started abusing him and for 10-15 minutes he was debating with him
and thereafter he gave a change of Rs. 4/- to him. Ordinarily, if a
person in this scenario asked for a change of four, one would have
assumed that he wanted to return a round figure of Rs. 70/- and if
the change Rs. 4/- was not given he ought to return a figure of Rs.
6/- and it is unclear as to how after the exchange of argument, he
claims to have returned Rs. 4/-. An explanation, however, has indeed
been attempted in the cross-examination.
63. He further describes that the man was having moustache and his
forehead was broad and that he was wearing T-shirt and blue colour
pant and one key was hanging from his pocket; the man was of
5’5’’ in height with a well built body and was 28 to 29 years of age.
The witness states that the statement was recorded on 08.02.2014
and he participated in the TI parade on 25.03.2014 and identified
the appellant in the jail. In the cross-examination, he adds that he
gave the person two chocolates and Rs. 4/- change. He admits that
he was having change but did not give him change. He states that
nobody came to him to enquire before 08.02.2014.
64. PW-19 Surendra PP Nayar, an AC mechanic who was on duty at
Kurla Terminus on 04.01.2014 between 08:00 PM and 06:00 AM.
He deposes that on 05.01.2014 Tulsi Express arrived at platform
no. 5 at 04:30 AM and that he would enter the AC compartment
one hour before the departure and put on the AC and keep the
door open. He deposes that he was standing near the train along
with two attendants as people were going in and coming out. The
witness states that on that day one person came to him and told him
that he is from Railway staff and he wanted to go by that train. The
person further stated that he was a coolie and now his service is
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1081

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

confirmed as gangman. The witness replied to him that the TC was
yet to come and advised him to enter the train after the TC’s arrival.
The witness also advised him to go to the general coach. According
to witness, the person went and came back and told him that there
was no place in the general bogie and at which point, the witness
advised him to go in sleeper coach upto Manmad as there is quota
of Nashik to Manmad. The witness claims that the person went away
and was having thums-up bottle in his hand, had no luggage and
was wearing white coloured T-shirt and jeans pant and the person
was well built and was not having hairs from the front side. The
police recorded his statement on 22.01.2014 and thereafter he was
called to the jail for the TI parade on 25.03.2014 and he identified
the appellant. The witness denied that the police came along with
photograph captured from CCTV footage.
65. Mr. Shri Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant seriously
questioned the reliability of PW-18 and PW-19. At the outset, learned
counsel states that the witnesses cannot be classified as persons
who have last seen the deceased with the appellant since they
merely claim to have sighted the appellant alone at the LTT Railway
Station on 05.01.2014. Learned Counsel submits that while PW-18’s
statement was recorded, nearly after a month from 05.01.2014 (the
statement was recorded on 08.02.2014) and PW-19’s statement was
recorded on 22.01.2014. Learned Counsel claims that it is unnatural
for either of them to remember the appellant based on any brief,
chance encounter and canvassed that it was surprising that identical
detailed descriptions of height, clothes worn were provided by the
witnesses.
66. Admittedly, according to the learned counsel, CCTV footage was not
shown to the witnesses and as such it was unclear as to on what
basis the Police knew that the person they were speaking of, was
the same man in the footage. Learned counsel further questions
that TI Parade was of no value since as was submitted earlier, the
photographs were widely circulated in the Media from as early as
04.03.2014.
67. Learned counsel contends that circumstances of last seen can be
taken into consideration only when the prosecution establishes that
the time gap between the point where the accused and deceased
were last seen together and the time when deceased was found
1082 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

dead was so small that the possibility of any other person being
with the deceased could be completely ruled out. Learned counsel
draws our attention to the judgments in State of Goa Vs. Sanjay
Thakran & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755, and Anjan Kumar Sarma &
Ors. Vs. State of Assam (2017) 14 SCC 359.
68. According to the learned counsel, the deceased who alighted from
the Train on 05.01.2014 was found dead on 16.01.2014. As per Dr.
Chauhan, PW-25, the death was traced back 8-10 days before the
post-mortem, which was held on 17.10.2014. Going by this, the
deceased could have been killed at any point between 07.01.2014
and 09.01.2014 even as per the version of the prosecution. Learned
counsel further claims that the place where the body was found, was
not under the exclusive possession of the appellant and submits that
without the prosecution discharging its burden that no third person
could have intervened, the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence
Act would not shift to the appellant.
69. We have carefully considered the evidence of PW-20 and 21 on the
one hand, and PW-18 and 19 on the other. While PW-20 and 21
claim to have last seen the appellant and the deceased EA. PW-18
and 19 only claim to have seen the appellant.
70. Analysing the evidence, we must record that the witnesses fail to
inspire the necessary confidence that a Court of Law looks for, to
clinchingly establish the circumstances of last seen. To start, the
statement of PW-20 was recorded on 20th March, 2014 a good
two and a half months after 05.01.2014. Statement of PW-21was
recorded on 04.03.2014 a good two months later. The police has
not explained as to why this delay happened, particularly when they
have been inquiring at the Station since 16.01.2014.
71. PW-20 was approached on 07.01.2014 and was interacted with for
thirty minutes and PW-21 was approached on 01.03.2014. Neither
of them disclosed anything about seeing the appellant and the
deceased together.
72. PW-20, on top of it, admits to Police pressurising the taxi drivers.
There is also contradiction between PW-20 and PW-21. PW-20
states that he gave the statement only after PW-21 told him about his
statement. PW-21 denies any such happening. The way his physical
features are remembered also does not inspire confidence. It should
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1083

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

not be forgotten that they are referring to a time when the Station
would have been bustling with hectic activity, when the train would
have arrived and people would be departing in hordes in a hurried
manner. To recollect something that happened two and a half months
back in this situation would be a tall order. The Identification Parade
conducted by PW-39 Vishnu Janu Kanhekar also lacks steam since
the photographs of the appellant were admittedly published earlier
in the newspapers as deposed by DWs 1, 2 and 3.
73. In Suryamoorthi and Another v. Govindaswamy and Others,
(1989) 3 SCC 24, this Court in Para 10 held as under:-
“10. Two identification parades were held in the course
of investigation. At the first identification parade PW 1
identified all the seven accused persons whereas PW 2
identified three of them, namely, Accused 2, 6 and 7 alone.
It is, however, in evidence that before the identification
parades were held the photographs of the accused persons
had appeared in the local daily newspapers. Besides,
the accused persons were in the lock-up for a few days
before the identification parades were held and therefore
the possibility of their having been shown to the witnesses
cannot be ruled out altogether…”
74. In Gireesan Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180, this
Court in Para 31 held as under:-
“31. In cases where the witnesses have had ample
opportunity to see the accused before the identification
parade is held, it may adversely affect the trial. It is the duty
of the prosecution to establish before the court that right
from the day of arrest, the accused was kept “baparda”
to rule out the possibility of their face being seen while in
police custody. If the witnesses had the opportunity to see
the accused before the TIP, be it in any form i.e. physically,
through photographs or via media (newspapers, television,
etc.), the evidence of the TIP is not admissible as a valid
piece of evidence (Lal Singh v. State of U.P. [Lal Singh v.
State of U.P., (2003) 12 SCC 554 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp
489] and Suryamoorthi vs. Govindaswamy [suryamoorthi v.
Govindaswamy, (1989) 3 SCC 24 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 472] ).”
1084 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

75. However, evidence of PW-20 and PW-21 does not point towards
the guilt of accused even if we discount all these infirmities. The
law on circumstantial evidence mandates that any other hypothesis
must be ruled out. This is not a case where any conviction could
be sustained even if we believe PW-20 and PW 21 on the basis
of their evidence, in view of our holding with regard to the other
circumstances, some of which have been recorded hereinabove
and some of which are to follow hereinbelow. In view of the same,
even we have to assume that the evidence of PW-20 and 21 are
to be taken at their face value (which is difficult) we still do not find
the evidence clinching to record the conviction.
76. This Court in the case of Sanjay Thakran (supra), held as under:-
“34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the
circumstance of last seen together would normally be
taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of
the offence charged with when it is established by the
prosecution that the time gap between the point of time
when the accused and the deceased were found together
alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small
that possibility of any other person being with the deceased
could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the
accused persons seen in the company of the deceased
and the detection of the crime would be a material
consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing
reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But,
in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last
seen together is to be rejected merely because the time
gap between the accused persons and the deceased last
seen together and the crime coming to light is after (sic
of) a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed
or straitjacket formula for the duration of time gap in this
regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the
prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person
meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to
say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence
that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being
the author of the crime, becomes impossible, then the
evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although
there is long duration of time, can be considered as one
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1085

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to
prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if
the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any
other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the
place of incident or before the commission of the crime,
in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together
would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be
demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were
in exclusive possession of the place where the incident
occurred or where they were last seen together with the
deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to
that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time
gap would not affect the prosecution case.”
77. PW-18 and PW-19 had not last seen the accused appellant and
the deceased together. The statement of PW-18 was recorded on
08.02.2014 and the other of PW-19 on 22.01.2014. They have not
been shown the CCTV footage admittedly. How they remembered
as to what happened on 05.01.2014 when the Police recorded their
statement on 22.01.2014 and 08.02.2014 is anybody’s guess. In
any event, taking the evidence at its highest will only mean that the
appellant was at the station and coupled with the other evidence some
of which we have analysed hereinabove and the rest of which we
have done hereinbelow it does not satisfy the five golden principles
of circumstantial evidence. That TI Parade held on 25.03.2014 leaves
much to be desired as the photograph of the appellant was all over
the place in the Media, as early as on 04.03.2014.
With regard to PW-18 and PW-19 claiming to recollect incidents on
the railway platform, we only want to draw attention to the judgment
of this Court in Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210, wherein this Court answered as
under:-
“27. The overzealous efforts made by the prosecution to
link the handkerchief allegedly found near the body of the
deceased to the appellant lends support to the argument
of the learned counsel for the appellant that the police
had fabricated the case to implicate the appellant. In his
statement, PW 7 Mohd. Farid Abdul Gani, who is said to
have sold the handkerchief to the appellant, admitted that
1086 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

he was not selling branded handkerchiefs and that there
were no particular marks on the goods sold by him. He,
however, recognised the handkerchief by saying that the
accused made a lot of bargaining and he was amused by
the latter’s statement that he will soon become an actor.
29. In our opinion it is extremely difficult to believe that
a person engaged in the business of hawking would
remember what was sold to a customer almost two months
after the transaction and that too without identity of the
goods sold having been established.”

Evidence of the Dog Walker PW-23 to establish presence of the
appellant in the vicinity of the crime and evidence of PW-13:-
78. PW-23 Prahlad Kumar Yadav claims that he works in the Salt Office
between Kanjur Marg and Bhandup. One of his jobs is to wake up in
the morning at 5:30 and take the five dogs for a stroll. According to
this witness, on 19.01.2014, one constable came to him and took him
to the Police Station and inquired whether he saw any person near
the service road on 05.01.2014. He replied stating that he saw one
person 100 meters away from the service road. The Police further
inquired whether he saw any person starting the Bike near the service
road and he replied that he saw one person starting the bike.
79. PW-23 further states that he asked the person who was starting the
bike whether he had a problem in starting the bike and the person
nodded his head in agreement. The witness adds that when he
saw him he found that there was mud on his shoulder and when
he asked the person whether he fell down, the person said he did
not fall down. When the witness further asked the person whether
he could help him start the bike, the person told him that there was
no petrol. The witness claims that he saw one bag on his back
and one bag was kept on the petrol tank of the bike. The witness
adds that the person parked the bike there and was going towards
Vikhroli by pulling the trolley bag. The witness says he went towards
in with the dogs and saw him wearing white colour T-shirt and blue
colour jeans pant and he was 5’5” in height and was of wheatish
complexion. The witness claims that he identified the person who he
saw on 05.01.2014 at the Identification Parade on 25.03.2014. The
witness states that the person shown in Court on the VC screen is
the same person.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1087

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

80. Mr. Shri Singh the learned counsel assailing the evidence of PW-23
contends that the statement was belatedly taken on 19.01.2014 and
it was unnatural to remember the details after a chance meeting
which happened two weeks back particularly when the witness
could not recall other past information. Learned counsel contends
that the Police asked as to whether he saw someone starting a
Motorcycle even though the role of the Motorcycle was known
only on 03.03.2014 after the arrest of the appellant on 02.03.2014.
Further learned counsel contends that there was no explanation as
to how the investigator chanced upon the PW-23 and as to how
they were aware that the Motorcycle was being used as early as
on 19.01.2024 and as to why no steps were taken to recover the
Motorcycle then. No site plan was prepared and according to learned
counsel, PW-23 did not depose the exact time of the encounter
and the exact place where he saw the man except stating that it
was 100 meters away from the service road. According to learned
counsel, the proximity of the place where allegedly PW-23 saw
the appellant to the spot where the body was found has not been
established. Challenging the TI Parade, learned counsel reiterates
about the Photos being widely circulated. He further contends that
even though the Mobile Phone of the appellant was seized after
his arrest on 03.02.2023, no steps to ascertain the location on
05.01.2014 were ever undertaken.
81. We find the evidence of PW-23 unnatural. As to how on 19.01.2024
he remembered about what happened on 05.01.2024, when he does
not remember other past information is surprising. Here again, PW-23
is not the witness in the last seen category. He only claims to have
seen the appellant under circumstances which are doubtful and to
sustain a conviction on the basis of his evidence will be very unsafe.
Hence, we discard the evidence of PW-23. As stated earlier, the TI
Parade also is vitiated because admittedly the Photographs were all
over the place from 04.03.2014. The other infirmities pointed out by
the appellant have also not been met by the prosecution. That on
19.01.2024, PW-23 remembers that on 05.01.2014 he met a person
in the early morning who had mud on the shoulders is too big of a
pill to swallow. We need to say nothing more on this witness.
82. So far as PW-13 Mohammad Usman Lalmiyan Khan is concerned,
a main portion of his examination in chief is as follows:-
1088 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“I saw the accused for many times. I saw him coming to
society for many times. On 05/01/14 at 9.00 a.m. I saw
the accused going with his mother when I was standing
with Chairman with other persons near the water room.
(The witness started the statement saying that something
published in paper). After 05.01.14 I have not seen the
accused. The accused was having one bag on back and
one trolley bag. The police inquired with me and recorded
my statement on 12/03/14.”
We really see no basis on which this can be considered as a link in
the chain of circumstances to prove the offence of which the appellant
is charged. We need to say nothing more.
83. Before we deal with the aspect of the evidence of PWs - 9, 12, 22
and the recoveries allegedly effected, we would first deal with the
evidence of PWs -15, 16 and 17.

Evidence of PWs-15, 16, 17:-
84. PW-16 is Prasad Sharadchandra Shukla, a Priest in Trimbakeshwar
Temple. He deposes that he does Puja for Kalsarpayog. He states
that on 05.01.2014 the appellant came to him on reference of PW-17
Rajabhau Aher (the astrologer) for performing Puja of Kalsarpayog and
Atigand Yog. He deposes that the appellant came with his horoscope
and paid him Rs. 3000/-. That the Puja was performed at 7:30 AM
on 06.01.2014 when the appellant was accompanied by his mother.
He deposes that when his mother went out, the appellant told him
that he had committed sin towards one lady and asked whether it
would be cleared by performing the Puja. He told him that there
is no relation between his act and the Puja and with this Puja the
problems could be solved.
85. More importantly, he deposes that he used to maintain the register
and mentioned the name of the person, date and amount given by
him. In the register the name of the appellant is mentioned. According
to the witness, Police from Crime Branch came on 10.03.2014 and
he produced the register; that the police took the register for taking
Xerox copy and returned it to him and in the register on 06.01.2014
the appellant’s name is mentioned on 4th number of the said page.
He deposes that the entries in the register were in his handwriting
and on the register the Panch witness PW-15 signed in his presence.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1089

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

The extract of the register verified from the original was marked as
Exhibit 112. He stated that his statement was recorded on 10.03.2014
and also stated that the accused shown on Video Conference was
the same. In the cross-examination he deposes that he starts writing
diary by “Om or Swastik” and used to perform Puja on copies or
notebooks on Diwali.
86. PW-16, stated that neither was his name mentioned, nor was there
any stamp of his on the register. He submitted that he had not
brought the register maintained before and after this register. He
also admitted that there is no entry in the register after 09.03.2014.
He further stated that the names of the persons who came to him
on 07.01.2014 are not mentioned in the register. Further the names
of persons who came from 13.01.2014 to 14.01.2014 for performing
Puja are also not mentioned. He stated that he is not able to say who
came on 07.01.2014. He admitted that there are different hand writings
of six to seven persons in the register and there is no signature of
any person under the entry and that he cannot say that which entry
is made by whom. He also stated that there are several strikings in
Exhibit 112. He says that except the signature on Exhibit 112 there
is no signature on any page of the register. He stated that he cannot
say how many persons have performed Puja on 06.01.2014. He
admitted that he had not stated in his statement that after mother
left the house, the appellant asked him about anything.
87. PW-15 Ashok Kumar Harivilas Pandey is a resident of Mumbai.
According to his evidence, on 10.03.2014, Police constable Sanjay
Jadhav called him to the Police Station. Police Officer Mr. Mane
was present there. The Police told him that he had to go to Nasik,
Panchvati, Makhmalabad for conducting Panchnama. He along with
another Panch witness and Mr. Mane went to Nasik by white colour
Scorpio Vehicle. He was told that one house search in one murder
case at Nasik had to be done. They reached Makhmalabad at 12:00
noon. During the search, nothing was found in the house. Post lunch
they went to Trimbakeshwar and Mr. Mane sent one constable to
call PW-16 Shri Prasad Shukla. The Police asked him whether the
appellant came for performing Puja at which point PW-16 took one
register from his bag and after going through the same, told him that
appellant came there to perform Puja on 06.01.2014 and received
Rs. 3000/- from him. He stated that the Police took the Xerox copy
of the extract of register and the original was returned. The Xerox
1090 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

copy was marked as Article 30. The extract bears the signature of
PW-15 at serial no. 2. The Panchnama was marked as Exhibit 110
which was counter signed by PW-37 Santosh Dattaram Sawant -
SPI attached to DCB CID Unit-VII. He admitted that there was no
signature of PW-16 on the Panchnama and that there were no other
persons from Trimbakeshwar when the Panchnama was prepared.
88. PW-17 is Rajabhau Baburao Aher, an Astrologer in Nasik. According
to this witness, on 05.01.2014 at about 2 PM, the appellant came
with one elderly lady. The appellant was under pressure and he told
him that his stars are not good and therefore he consulted him to
see his horoscope. On reading his horoscope, he told him that his
horoscope had Kalsarpadosh and Atigand Dosh and that a shanti
Puja had to be performed at Trimbakeshwar. PW-17 gave him the
visiting card of PW-16 and asked him to go to him. He stated that
when the appellant and the lady were about to leave, the appellant
asked him if any sin has been committed by him against any woman
and whether the said Puja could rectify it. His reply was that answer,
would be given by Guruji. He submitted that the original of the
horoscope is with the appellant and he identified the Xerox copy.
The Xerox copy was marked as Exhibit 114. On VC, he identified
the appellant. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there was
no signature of his on the horoscope and no date was mentioned
and even the signature of appellant was not there. He admitted that
5 to 10 persons come daily and 25 persons would come in a week
and he cannot say the description and names of the said persons
since he did not maintain any register.
89. Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
statements attributed to the appellant are vague and generic and did
not link the appellant to the crime. Learned counsel submits that on
02.03.2014, when the appellant was arrested the Police claim that
the horoscope was in his back pocket and the Police took eight days
to investigate the horoscope, particularly, when the Police travelled
to Nasik on 03.03.2014 to allegedly recover the trolley bag. The
appellant’s visit to PW-16 has also not been proved.
90. We are really at a loss to understand as to what the prosecution seeks
to establish. The priest has no systematic account of maintaining
registers and on summoning of the Police, he seems to appear
before the Police and produced the register out of the bag. It is
also intriguing why the appellant would carry the horoscope as late
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1091

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

as on 02.03.2014. In any case, the evidence given by PWs -15, 16
and 17 do not constitute circumstantial evidence having any nexus
with the commission of the crime in question. We totally discard this
from the chain of circumstances.

Evidence of PWs - 9, 10, 12 and 22 and the alleged extra judicial
confession to PW-9:-
91. The role of the Motorcycle in this case has several twists and
turns. PW-10 Sureshchandra Ramdhiraj Mishra, is a driver of Auto
Rickshaw and is a resident of Vikroli, Mumbai. He is acquainted with
PW-9 Nandkishore Sahu since 2010. The acquaintance, according
to him, was only to the extent of Hi, Hello. He states that he gave
a Discover Motor Bike of Bajaj Company bearing no. MH03AY0241
to Nandkishore Sahu.
92. PW-10 states that his Pan Card, Voting Card and Ration Card were
given for purchasing the said Motor Bike while the payment was
being made by PW-9 also known as Nandkishore Sahu. He states
that PW-9 was using the said Motor Bike and he gave the documents
since such documents were not with Sahu. His case is that he gave
the documents and Sahu (PW-9) made the payment and that the
police recorded his statement. He is not able to say the date and
month when the Motor Bike was purchased and there was nothing
with him to show that it was purchased in his name and was used
by Sahu. He states that the Police called him in connection with the
case on 05.03.2014 and told him that the vehicle was seized in the
said murder case.
93. The significance of the Motor Bike emerges in the evidence of PW-9
Nandkishore Sahu who claims to be the resident of Shri Bhalchandra
Building in Kanjurmarg and claims to be a hawker. He claims that
he has Motorcycle bearing No. MH03AY0241 and he purchased the
same in year 2010. He is aware about the appellant since, according
to him, the appellant stays behind his building. PW-9 states that he
and the appellant used to play cards and the appellant was staying
at Kanjurmarg before 2-3 years and was staying at Nasik also. He
states that the mother and the sister of the appellant were staying
at Kanjurmarg. While the appellant’s mother sold fruits, he did not
know about the sister of the appellant, Sunita. According to him, the
appellant came to Mumbai and he met him for the last time in Mumbai
1092 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

on 31.12.2013 on which day he met for 2-4 times. He states that he
is aware of PW-12 Rajashri Raju Shetty who does the business of
selling liquor in the Chawl. He claims that on 04.01.2014, he took
some wine and parcel of meals and was with Rajashri (PW-12)
consuming liquor from 10:30 to 11:30 PM. He states that at about
11:32 PM, the appellant nick named Chokya came there and was
having a parcel with him and also sat there for consuming liquor. He
states that till 1:30AM they were sitting there. Thereafter, according
to him, the appellant told him that he was hungry and asked for
some eatables. Since, they were not having anything to eat, the
appellant asked for the key of his Motorcycle and he gave the key
of his Motorcycle.
94. According to him, the appellant took the key and went at 01:30 AM.
He states that he waited for 40-45 Minutes but since the appellant did
not return back, he went to his house and went to sleep. He states
that next day morning at 7:30 AM, he received a phone call from the
room of the appellant; that he went to the house of the appellant;
that the mother and the sister of the appellant were present in the
house; that one hand bag and one trolley bag were there and he
found that the clothes were there in the said bag; that one white
colour T-shirt which was stained with mud was lying there. He states
that the appellant came with him after wearing the clothes and when
PW-9 asked him for the key, the appellant told him that as there was
no petrol he had to park it at the highway and the appellant asked
PW-9 to come with him by taking somebody’s vehicle. PW-9 states
that he went to PW-22 Kadir Murgeewala and on his asking, PW-
22 gave his splendor bike and the appellant sat on the Motorcycle
behind him stating that he would show where the Motorcycle was
parked. Thereafter, the appellant showed the bike and asked him
to take the service road where PW-9 saw his bike parked on the
service road. PW-9 states that he tried to start the Motorcycle but
there was no petrol. Thereafter, PW-9 states that the appellant went
100 ft. away from him inside the bushes and when he went behind
him he saw the appellant searching something in the bushes and
when asked the appellant told him that he was searching something.
PW-9 states that at the place where he was searching, one girl was
lying there and she was no more and she was 23-24 years of age.
PW-9 states that he was scared and came back. The appellant came
running behind him and when he asked him he told him everything.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1093

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

95. PW-9 states that the appellant told him that he went to Kurla Terminus
for taking PW-9’s bike. One girl got down from the Train and when he
asked her where she wanted to go the girl told him that she wanted
to go to Andheri. The appellant told her that he was also going to
Andheri and he had taken her on the Motorcycle and brought her on
the spot. Thereafter, he took her in the bushes and raped her. When
the girl started shouting he had pressed her mouth and strangulated
her by scarf and killed her. The PW-9 states that the appellant gave
him threats stating that if he mentions it to anybody he would not
spare him. On a question by PW-9 as to why the petrol was not in
the Motorcycle, the appellant said he did not know but thereafter
told him that he poured the petrol on the body and tried to burn it.
PW-9 further added that the appellant was searching the Mobile
Phone of the said girl as he was having apprehension that she might
have taken his photograph or photograph of the Motorcycle number.
Thereafter, PW-9 states that he put petrol in his Motorcycle from the
other Motorcycle and thereafter the accused rode his Motorcycle while
he took another Motorcycle and both reached home. Thereafter, the
PW-9 states that on 06.01.2014 accused called him and told him
not to disclose it to anybody at which point PW-9 told him, that he
could not disclose to anybody and disconnected the phone. PW-9
states that again on 07.01.2014 he called him on his Mobile and
gave threats that he would kill his family members. Thereafter, PW-9
states that he did not receive call and he was threatened and since
he knew that he is of quarrelsome nature and 2 to 3 crimes were
registered against him hence, he did not disclose it to anybody.
96. PW-9 states that on 15.01.2014 he again called him but he did not
receive his call. Thereafter, since PW-9’s mother’s health was not
good he went to Nasik and after taking Rs. 2500/- from his brother-
in-law he went to his native place. PW-9 states that on 11.02.2014
and 13.02.2014 he went to Nasik. He states that on 04.03.2014 he
came to know that Police from crime branch called him and therefore,
on 06.03.2014 he went to crime branch and gave his statement. In
cross-examination PW-9 deposed that Police from crime branch
office had called his wife and that Police met him for the first time
and disclosed to him about the case on 04.03.2014.
97. PW-9 admitted in cross-examination that in his statement he had
not stated that when he asked about the key to the appellant, the
appellant told him that there was no petrol and it was parked in
1094 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the highway. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in the
statement that appellant came with him after wearing clothes. PW-9
further states that he was not at home when the Police came to his
house and took the Motorcycle. He further stated that near Kanjur
Marg bridge there was a petrol pump and the bridge was about 5
minutes distance from his house and the petrol pump was also on
the way from the spot to his house.
98. PW-9 further submitted that though it will be incorrect to say that
the appellant was not his close friend he also said that he was not
having close friendship with him. PW-9 admitted that he had a quarrel
with him three years before. PW-9 admitted that it was correct to say
that he was annoyed with him because of the said quarrel and from
that day he came to know that appellant was of quarrelsome nature.
He further stated that he decided to keep distance from him from
that day and that after the quarrel he did not meet him for 3 years.
99. PW-12 Rajashri Raju Shetty is a resident of MHADA Building, Kanjur
Marg, Mumbai. She claims to know both PW-9 Nandkishore and the
appellant. She stated that the appellant and PW-9 are staying in the
same area and both PW-9 and the appellant would come to her house.
She states that the appellant came at 10:30 PM on 04.01.2014 with a
bottle of liquor and asked for some snacks. She states that as there
was no food the appellant took the key of Motorcycle of Nandkishore
and went and that PW-9 Nandkishore waited for sometime and went
to his house at about 11:00 PM.
100. At this stage, it is also relevant to discuss the evidence of PW-22
Abdul Kadir Shah, the owner of the chicken shop. He deposed
that he knows PW-9 whom he calls Kishore. He deposed that, on
05.01.2014, PW-9 came to his shop about 7:00 AM and asked
for key of the Motorcycle. At that time, he asked him why he was
asking for Motorcycle and PW-9 told him that his Bike was taken
by his friend at night and it is parked on the highway and therefore,
he wanted my bike to be brought back. He deposed that he gave
the key of his Motor Bike and after half an hour PW-9 returned the
key to him. He also deposes that he is aware that PW-9 was taken
into custody by the Police in this case. PW-22 does not speak of
the presence of the appellant with PW-9, when PW-9 arrested him.
101. It is also relevant to deal with the evidence of PW-3 Boga Rama
More who was the Panch witness for the recovery of the Motorcycle,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1095

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

as also PW-36 Pravin Sarjerao Patil (API DCB CID) who also
speaks of the recovery of the Motorcycle. PW-36 Pravin Sarjerao
Patil who was API attached to the crime branch unit 7, states that
he was present when the accused was arrested on 02.03.2014
and he interrogated the accused on 03.03.2014 till 6:30 PM.
According to him, the accused showed his willingness to make
voluntary statement. PW-36 asked constable Shetty to bring Panch
witnesses and recorded the statement under Exhibit 42. He states
that thereafter, they went in the Police Vehicle along with accused,
appellant, API Sawant, two constables and the Panch witnesses.
The accused asked the vehicle to be stopped at Karve Nagar at
Kanjur Marg. On his instruction, the vehicle was stopped in front of
one library the accused by walk took them in front of Rose Beauty
Parlour. In front of the Beauty Parlour one Motorcycle was parked
bearing No. MH03-AY-0241. He recorded the engine no. and
chassis no. When asked about the key, the appellant told that his
friend is having the key who is staying on the second floor of the
said building and his name was Nandkishore Sahu (PW-9). PW-36
states that he sent constable shetty (not examined) along with Panch
witness no. 2 Moh. Rehan Shafi Sheikh (not examined) – (Panch
witness no. 1 was PW-3 Boga Rama More) to bring the key. They
had brought the key and Exhibit-42A Panchnama was prepared for
the seizure of the Motorcycle.
102. Admittedly, as is clear, no Panchnama of handing over of the key
by the person on the second floor was made. The person who went
to collect the key is not examined. PW-3 Boga Rama More who
narrates the same sequence is not the Panch witness who went
to collect the key. DW-4 Vikas Narayan Palekar, Nodal Officer in
Vodafone who produced the CDR of Mobile No. 7775853547 speaks
of in the cross-examination that there was no phone call or SMS
from the said mobile from 11.02.2014 to 02.03.2014. However, in
the Chief, he did mention about the calls on 05.01.2014, 06.01.2014
and 08.01.2014. Admittedly, the phone bearing No. 7775853547
belongs to Sagar Kakker, as spoken to by PW-38, Vyanket Bhanudas
Patil, the Senior Police Inspector attached to DCB CID Unit – VII,
Ghatkopar. The claim of the prosecution is that Sagar Kakkar is the
appellant’s brother-in-law. PW-38 also admitted that no statement
of Sagar Kakkar was recorded and he was also not examined. A
suggestion was put to him that he was deposed falsely about Sagar
1096 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Kakkar being the brother-in-law of the appellant. However, nothing
was produced to establish the said fact or that the appellant had
access to the said phone bearing No. 777585347. In view of that
it will be too much to assume that the calls from the said no. to
PW-9 were made by the appellant and to further assume that the
calls were threatening calls so as to deter PW-9 from reporting to
the Police about the alleged extra judicial confession.
103. Mr. Shri Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant while assailing
the extra judicial confession purported to be given to PW-9 by the
appellant contends that PW-9 is an unreliable witness and the
circumstances around the alleged confession raised questions on his
credibility; that PW-9 statement was recorded on 06.03.2014 after a
delay of about 2 months after the incident; that the justification for
the delay being the threats is an embellishment since the number
(7775853547) allegedly used by the appellant to make these
threats admittedly belong to one Sagar Kakkar; and the claim of
the Police that Sagar Kakkar is the appellant’s brother-in-law is not
supported with any proof nor was any investigation done to relate
the number to the appellant; that the version of the prosecution as
to how PW-9 joined the investigation is contradicted by the record
inasmuch as while prosecution’s case is that the Police met PW-9
for the first time on 06.03.2014, the real fact is that PW-9 is taken
into custody by Police in January, 2014, as spoken by the PW-22;
further that the newspaper reporting (Article 41 Exhibited by DW-2
Shiva Sukhranyam Davnath) of 04.03.2014 mentioned his name
thereby indicating that the Police were aware of him atleast 2 days
before they claim to have first spoken with him.
104. In view of all these, it was contended that PW-9’s testimony regarding
the extra judicial confession which is inherently a weak piece of
evidence is completely unreliable particularly when prosecution’s
own witness speaks of his being taken into custody and, in any
event, 2 days before the recording of the statement it being publicly
announced that Nandkishore (PW-9) was already in contact with the
Police. According to Shri Singh, no new information was brought on
record and PW-9’s deposition merely brings together the disparate
pieces of evidence already available with the Police. According to
the learned counsel no importance should be attached to the extra
judicial confession, since it served merely to bolster the circumstantial
evidence on which the case depends.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1097

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

105. According to the learned counsel, PW-9’s testimony was not
corroborated on any material particulars and his evidence
primarily consisted of material improvements which were put to
the investigating officer. A part of the evidence of PW-38 Vyanket
Bhanudas Patil, Senior Police Inspector, DCB CID unit VII, is
extracted hereinbelow:
“44. I have recorded the statement of Nandkumar Sahu
(PW 9). PW 9 has not stated in his statement that he was
using motorcycle No. MH- 02-AY-0241. He has not stated
in his statement that Sanap was staying at the backside
of his building. He has not stated in his statement that
Rajashree Shetty was doing the business of selling the
liquor. He has not stated in his statement that Chandrabhan
asked him whether there was any eatable in the house. He
has stated that there was nothing to eat. He has not stated
in his statement that there was handbag in the house of
Chandrabhan and the colour of T-shirt was white. He has
not stated in his statement that when he asked about the
key of motorcycle, the accused told him that as there was
no petrol in it, it was parked at Highway. He has not stated
in his statement that he asked Channdrabhan what he was
doing and he told that he was searching something. He
has not stated in his statement that when he saw the body,
he was scared and came back. He has not stated in his
statement that he asked the accused what he had done.
He has not stated in his statement that accused told him
that one girl got down from the train. He has not stated in
his statement that the accused told him that when the girl
started shouting, he had closed her mouth. The PW 9 has
not stated in his statement that accused told him that he
is afraid that she had taken the photograph of number of
vehicle. only the number is not mentioned by him He has
not stated in his statement that on 07/01/14 again accused
called him and gave him threats and he had given threats
that accused would kill his family members.
45. PW 9 has not stated in his statement that thereafter
he has not received phone calls from the accused as he
was frightened and having quarrelsome nature. He has not
stated in his statement that he did not receive the phone
1098 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

call. He has not stated in his statement that he went to
Nasik on 13/01/14.5.”
106. Learned counsel, further contended that the evidence of PW-9 and
PW-22 contradicted each other. While PW-9 states he did not tell
PW-22 anything, PW-22 depose that PW-9 told him that he needed
the Motorcycle since his friend’s Motorcycle was parked on the
highway; further PW-22 admitted to not disclosing to the Police this
fact when they first inquired from him on 05.01.2014.
107. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the
Motorcycle theory appears to have been introduced to create a role
for PW-9 and it was unnatural for the appellant to call PW-9 and
take PW-22’s Motorcycle for transferring petrol when PW-9 admitted
that their house was 20 to 25 minutes away by walking from the
spot and there was a petrol pump near the bridge 5 minutes away
from his house.
108. We have carefully considered the efficacy of the extra judicial
confession of PW-9. Extra judicial confession, by its very nature,
has been held to be a weak piece of evidence. Normally it is given
to persons who enjoyed the confidence and trust of the accused.
From the evidence mentioned above, we are not able to find that
PW-9 enjoyed the confidence of the accused so as to safely infer
that the accused would have made a clean breast of things to PW-9.
Further disturbing feature in this case is that PW-22 does speak of
Police taking PW-9 into custody in connection with this case. There
is no re-examination of PW-22 at this stage.
109. In the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023)
6 SCC 605, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) speaking for the Court,
felicitously set out the Statement of law thus:
“16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held
that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by
suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful
and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is
well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would
generally look for an independent reliable corroboration
before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial
confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that
conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1099

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.
17. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the judgment
of this Court in Sahadevan v. State of T.N. [Sahadevan
v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)
146] This Court, in the said case, after referring to various
earlier judgments on the point, observed thus : (SCC pp.
412-13, para 16)
“16. Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments
of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles
which would make an extra-judicial confession an
admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis
of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide
the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases
where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial
confession alleged to have been made by the accused:
(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by
itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care
and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility
and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of
cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis
of conviction, it should not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any
other fact and in accordance with law.”
110. Further, from DW-2 read with Article 41, it is clear there are
reasonable grounds to believe that PW-9 was in interaction with
Police in some capacity. In any event, discounting all that, from
the cross-examination portion extracted above of PW-38 with so
many omissions in the statement of PW-9, we do not feel it prudent
to sustain the conviction based on the purported extra judicial
confession given to PW-9. Moreover, there is no corroboration in
1100 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

material particulars and hence we are inclined to reject the extra
judicial confession purportedly given to PW-9.
111. In the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty vs. State of T.N., (1988) 3 SCC
319, this Court held as under: -
“26. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in
a newspaper is merely hearsay that therefore inadmissible
in evidence in absence of the maker of the statement
appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the
fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced
the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen
money from Appellant 2’s house at Mangalore was effected
or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth
of the contents of the news item…”
112. Moreover, the recovery of the Bike leaves much to be desired. The
ownership of the Bike is in the name of PW-10 Sureshchandra
Ramdhiraj Mishra. He claims that money was paid by PW-9; the
recovery was from an open place and most importantly neither the
constable Shetty who went to collect the key nor the Panch witness
no. 2 Mohammed Rehan Shafi Shaikh have been examined in this
case. No Panchnama was made to the delivery of the key from
the second floor.
113. That leaves for consideration, the recovery of the trolley bag from
Nasik on 03.03.2014 from PW-24 Kamlabai Kisan Sanap, who
is a resident of Mhasoba Patangan, Panchvati, Nashik, and the
recovery of the plastic carry bag from the mess of the appellant’s
sister including items like ID cards and Spectacles.
114. Insofar as the recovery of the trolley bag is concerned, the evidence
of PW-24 should be read with evidence of PW-4 Abdul Sattar
Sayyed Ali Shaikh-the Panch witness. PW-24 Kamlabai Kisan Sanap
stated that on a particular date which she does not remember, she
was sitting near the public toilet; that the appellant on VC (video
conference) came to see her; that she asked her why she was sitting
there and asked her whether she could take the bag; that when
she asked why she is giving the bag he told her that his sister is
no more and is giving the bag which is of black colour and having
two wheels; that there were some clothes inside the bag which
she threw since they were dirty and 2 other clothes she sold for
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1101

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

Rs. 20; that she has kept the bag at Misrawada in a room and
that she handed over to Police and they left the house after taking
thumb impression on paper.
115. The black coloured bag was produced as Article 22. In cross-
examination, PW-24 stated that because of old age she cannot
recollect the persons who gave her articles; that she cannot
say on what date the accused came to her; that the face of the
accused was covered with black cloth that she gave the thumb
impression as per the say of the Police; that many times Panchvati
Police came there and used to drive them out. Most importantly,
PW-24 stated that the Police came to her and told her to show
the bag otherwise they would arrest her; that the Police told her
to depose and that Police told her to identify the person shown
on the screen of VC.
116. PW-4 Abdul Sattar Sayyed Ali Shaikh is a resident of Ghatkopar,
Mumbai and he was the Panch witness for the recovery of the
bag from the elderly lady. No effort was made to associate a local
Panch witness and PW-4 was taken all the way from Mumbai.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution
case is that ACP Bhonsle came to know during the investigation
that the appellant was found in Kharve Nagar, Kanjur Marg West.
So he along with Senior Police Inspector Patil and Officer Sawant
reached Kharve Marg and arrested the accused at 23.05 hours on
02.03.2014; that the appellant in his disclosure statement Exh.44
stated that he gave a trolley bag to one poor lady in Nasik and that
he would show the said ‘lady’; however, PW-4 and PW-35 depose
that the appellant stated his readiness to produce the trolley bag
and contended that the exact information given by the accused in
the disclosure statement ought to be proved; that no description of
PW-24 or the place in Nasik was given in the disclosure statement;
that PW-24 admitted that she was threatened with arrest; that she
was unaware of what was written on the paper she was putting
the thumb impression on and also did not identify the appellant in
the TIP; that no local Panch was associated and that trolley was
admittedly a generic and easily available material.
117. We are not impressed with the evidence of the recovery and, in
any event, merely based on the recovery no conviction for the
offence charged could be sustained against the appellant in this
1102 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

case. Similarly, the prosecution claims that PW-5 was a Panch
witness for the recovery of the bags which were with the victim.
PW-5 deposes that the appellant accompanied them in a Police
vehicle to room no. 12 in Sai Building; that one lady was there in
the room; that it was a sister’s room and she was running a Mess;
that the accused went inside the room and brought one plastic bag
and on search of the plastic bag, one I-card of University College of
Engineering JNU, Karkinada with the name of deceased written on
it, her photograph, Mobile number and hall ticket number were also
written on it was seized. One lady’s spectacles which were broken
was also seized. One lady’s jeans pant labelled as DIES was also
seized along with one ladies T-shirt and one ladies Top and one
¾ pant and one legging of blue colour and one Kajal Pencil in all
totalling 8 articles found in the plastic bag were seized.
118. PW-38 deposes that after the arrest of the accused he came to
know about his relatives including sister and wife and also about
the address of the accused. He also deposed that he was aware
on 4th March that the sister was staying in the house but, was not
aware that she was doing the business of Mess. PW-38 admitted
that the sister was having a mess in the ground floor but on 4th
March he was not aware about the business, he however, stated
that on 4th March no search was conducted on the ground floor.
119. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant’s sister
was in the same society and she has not been examined. That the
disclosure statement lacked material details like the description of
articles or the place where they were allegedly kept; that the theory
that the appellant retain the ID card of her college for over 2 months
was unnatural since according to prosecution he went as far as
Nasik to get rid of the trolley bag. According to the learned counsel,
PW-5 was an unreliable witness who had acted as a Panch witness
before and knew PW-38. That none of the items were linked to the
appellant, argues learned counsel.
120. We are not able to sustain the conviction based on this recovery for
the same reason as we are not impressed by the mere purported
recovery of the trolley bag from PW-24. The prosecution has not
answered the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant. As to why the college identity card of the deceased EA
would be preserved by the accused and kept in custody of the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1103

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra

sister nearly two months after the incident, is something we find
very intriguing.
121. All these facts cumulatively constrain us to conclude that there
are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible
conclusion that there is something more than what meets the
eye in this case. While the old adage, witness may lie but not
the circumstances, may be correct, however, the circumstances
adduced, as held by this Court, should be fully established. There
is a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or
should be proved’ as held by this Court. The circumstances relied
upon when stitched together do not lead to the sole hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused and we do not find that the chain is so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused.
122. Not only, is the test of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) not
satisfied, sustaining a conviction based on this sketchy and disjointed
evidence would be disregarding the warning of Judge Barron Alderson
in Reg vs. Hodge [1838] 2 Lew 227 as reiterated in Hanumant Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343, about the caution
to be exercised in cases based on circumstantial evidence:-
“The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting
circumstances to one another, and even in straining
them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of
one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind
of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such
matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some
little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact
consistent with its previous theories and necessary to
render them complete.”
123. On the available evidence, we are of the opinion that it will be
extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction against the appellant.
The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, we are constrained to come to the sole irresistible
conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the offences for which
he has been charged.
124. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we allow the appeal
and set aside the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Bombay
1104 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

dated 20.12.2018 in Confirmation Case no. 3 of 2015 with Criminal
Appeal No. 1111 of 2015 and acquit the appellant with regard to
the offences for which he was charged in this case. The appellant
shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain