Total summary
Appellant and Impugned Judgment
The appeal before the Supreme Court is preferred by the convict-appellant, Kondapaka Sridhar alias Shekar alias Madhu alias Gopi alias Chinna (A1), assailing the final judgment and order of the High Court whereby the High Court affirmed his conviction and sentence while acquitting all co-accused (A2, A3, A5, and A6) facing trial. [Paras 1, 2, 8, 16]
Factual Matrix
The criminal prosecution originated when a victim left home for Hyderabad, became unreachable by phone, and his father (PW1) subsequently received a telephonic demand to deposit a ransom of Rs. 2,00,000 into a designated bank account. PW1 lodged a police complaint and deposited Rs. 1,50,000 into the account of a third party, following which the investigating agency arrested A6 based on an analysis of call detail records. Upon interrogation, A6 allegedly pointed out Flat No. 402 at ARK Residency, Uppal, where the victim’s dead body—having succumbed to asphyxia due to smothering associated with strangulation—was discovered concealed inside a refrigerator, alongside confessional disclosures implicating the appellant and other co-accused in an orchestrated kidnapping and homicide scheme. [Paras 1, 3, 9, 15]
Trial and Appellate courts ‘ Verdicts and Parties’ Contentions
The Trial Court convicted all surviving accused (A1, A2, A3, A5, and A6; A4 having died during trial) by relying upon circumstantial evidence consisting of the ransom calls, bank transactions, recoveries of cash, call detail records, A6’s disclosure leading to the body, tenancy of the apartment, the watchman’s (PW3) identification and testimony of seeing the appellant with the deceased, and Test Identification Parade results. In appeal, the High Court reversed the convictions of A2, A3, A5, and A6 due to fatal evidentiary defects—specifically excluding ATM CCTV footage and call detail records for lack of mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and non-examination of nodal and bank officers, while also discrediting the compromised Test Identification Parade—yet sustained the conviction and sentence of A1 based solely on PW3’s testimony and an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act for failing to explain the presence of the corpse in the leased flat. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds that the alleged tenancy was completely unproved in the absence of a lease deed or proof of flat ownership by PW4, the watchman’s status and testimony were uncorroborated, and Section 106 could not be invoked to reverse the primary burden of proof; conversely, the respondent State maintained that the recovery of the corpus delicti from an apartment occupied by the appellant, coupled with PW3’s last-seen testimony, legally warranted an adverse inference under Section 106 to sustain the conviction. [Paras 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11]
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the burden of explanation onto an accused in the absence of substantive, independent proof establishing actual possession, leasehold tenancy, or exclusive control over the premises from which the corpus delicti is recovered, nor can a fractured “last seen” circumstance sustain a conviction where foundational electronic evidence is rendered inadmissible under Section 65B and the remaining prosecution case rests solely on uncorroborated confessional statements and unproven extra-judicial links. [Paras 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16]
Important paragraphs
4. We have to immediately notice that there was nothing to substantiate the above story but for the confessions, which definitely cannot be relied on to inculpate any of the accused.
CCTV footage disbelieved for not possible to identify of accused since no clarity in the footage and absence of certificate u/s 65B
6. The High Court found that the CCTV footage showing the withdrawal of the amounts, can only be disbelieved since it was not possible to identify the accused from the footage and also for the absence of a certificate, as required for an electronic evidence to be brought in evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The cellphone records, as produced by the I.O, were also not looked into since the Nodal Officer of the service provider was not examined and here too, there was absence of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
14. The money too, though, asserted to have been withdrawn by the accused as evident from the CCTV footage taken from the ATM counter, the CCTV footage could not be properly proved in evidence for reason of non-production of certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The High Court has also noticed that there was no clarity in the footage to identify the accused as such. The money recovered from A1 and A6, hence, cannot be connected with the crime. More importantly, there was a deposit made in an account in the name of one Geetanjali, there was no investigation on that front and the person who maintained that account has not been brought to the dock. The account statement showing the withdrawals through an ATM counter were also not produced and proved, by examining an official of the Bank, in which the account was maintained.
Conclusion
16. We, hence, find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of conviction entered against A1 by the High Court, and therefore, we set aside the same.
17. We have already directed A1 to be released and if he has been so released, the bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled. If A1 is still in custody, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
18. The appeal stands allowed.
Resources
Judgments Cited or Quoted
- No prior judgments or case laws are cited, quoted, or referenced in the provided document.
- Indian Evidence Act (cited in the text as the Indian Evidence Act, 1862):
- Section 65B (Admissibility of electronic records)
- Section 106 (Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge)
Party
Kondapaka Sridhar @Shekar @Madhu @Gopi @Chinna v. The State of Telangana - Criminal Appeal No. 4512 of 2025 - 2026 INSC 951 - September 03, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala, J. and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, J.
