Prosecution must prove the custody of sealed article from the time of seizure till they reach the FSL

Appeal

Appellant convicted by trial court

3. The appellant, Pooranmal, along with one Ladu Lal faced trial in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2010 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Both the accused were convicted by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012, for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sections 103 (1)/3(5) of the Bhartatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both the accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC [Section 238 of the BNS] and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Common appeal rejected by the High Court

4. The common appeal being DB Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2012 preferred by the accused persons against their conviction stands rejected by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur vide judgment and order dated 16th March, 2018. It may be mentioned here that Ladu Lal assailed the said judgment of the High Court by preferring Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1071 of 2022, which has been dismissed by this Court in limine vide order dated 7th February, 2022.

Appellant preferred this appeal through legal aid

5. The appellant-Pooranmal who was unable to prefer an appeal owing to poverty and lack of access to legal assistance, has now filed the present appeal through legal aid.

6. Vide order dated 28th January, 2026, we took note of the distinguishing features inter se between the case of the appellant-Pooranmal and that of the co-convict Ladu Lal and issued notice in the present appeal. The case of the prosecution as against the co-convict Ladu Lal was based on recoveries as well as the reverse burden of proof as provided under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 20237). In contrast, insofar as the appellant-Pooranmal is concerned, the prosecution’s case rests purely on recoveries and call detail records. It was in these circumstances and remaining conscious of the dismissal of the special leave petition preferred by the co-convict Ladu Lal, that we deemed it appropriate to entertain the special leave petition filed on behalf of the appellant-Pooranmal through legal aid, notwithstanding the significant delay of 2749 days, which stands condoned by the aforesaid order.

Brief facts

Appellant murdered the deceased along with co-convict

8. The case as set up by the prosecution is that the appellant-Pooranmal along with the co-convict Ladu Lal, committed murder of Aruna, wife of Ladu Lal, in the latter’s house on the night intervening 2nd March, 2010 and 3rd March, 2010.

FIR: 9. The written report of the incident (Ex. P-40) was lodged by none other than Ladu Lal before the Station House Officer, Police Station Bijolia alleging inter alia that he was sleeping in the drawing room of his house with his son Devender. His wife, Smt. Aruna, was sleeping in the adjacent room. At about 1:30 am, he got up to attend the call of nature and found that his room was bolted from outside. He tried calling Smt. Aruna on her mobile number, but she did not respond. On this, he called his brother, Satyanarayan (PW.2), and upon receiving no response, he called his acquaintance Shankar Singh Rathore, posted as constable at the Police Station Bijolia. Thereafter, some people gathered at the spot and opened his room from outside. Upon proceeding to the adjoining room, they found Smt. Aruna lying on the bed with visible injuries, including a wound on her left temple, along with signs of struggle. On checking closely, they realised that Smt. Aruna was dead. The almirah situated near the dead body was lying open, and a sum of approximately Rs. 4 lakh was missing therefrom. Ladu Lal alleged in the report that some unknown persons had murdered his wife by inflicting injuries on her head and requested the police to take action. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 28 of 2010 came to be registered at the Police Station Bijolia under Section 460 of the IPC (Section 331(8) of the BNS). The usual investigation was undertaken. The dead body was subjected to inquest proceedings and subsequently forwarded to the Medical Jurist for postmortem examination.

Recovery of money through appellant disclosure statement: 10. During the course of investigation, Ladu Lal was interrogated and looking to his evasive response, the needle of suspicion turned towards him and he was accordingly arrested. Ladu Lal made a confession/disclosure statement (Ex. P-42) and based thereupon, the appellant-Pooranmal was also apprehended in the present case. The Investigating Officer, Dalpat Singh (PW.22)8, thereafter effected recoveries of a blood-stained shirt and a sum of Rs.46,000/-, in furtherance of the disclosure statements made by the appellant-Pooranmal.

I.O collected CDR: 11. The Investigating Officer (PW.22) collected the call details of mobile Nos. 978****222 and 977****299 belonging to the accused persons, which led to the conclusion that the appellant-Pooranmal and Ladu Lal were continuously in contact with each other, proximate to the probable time of the incident.

Trial: 12. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet came to filed against two accused persons i.e. the appellant-Pooranmal and Ladu Lal for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC [Sections 103 (1)/3(5) and 238 of the BNS]. Since the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC [103 (1) of the BNS] was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed and made over to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara, Rajasthan for trial. The trial Court framed charges against both the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined twenty-four witnesses (PW.1 to PW.24) and exhibited fifty-five documents (Ex. P-1 to P-55) along with seven articles (Ex. A-1 to A-7) to prove its case.

Defence witnesses examined: 13. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent. Three witnesses (DW.1 to DW.3), and eight documents (Ex. D-1 to D-8) were exhibited in defence.

Judgment by Trial court convicting the accused: 14. As stated above, the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012 convicted and sentenced the appellant-Pooranmal and the coaccused for the offences mentioned above.

Appeal rejected by the High Court: 15. The appeal preferred by the appellantPooranmal against his conviction has been rejected by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 16th March, 2018 and hence, this appeal by special leave.

Analysis And Discussion

25. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellantPooranmal and learned standing counsel appearing for the State. We have also carefully perused the impugned judgments and sifted the evidence available on record.

Conviction is solely on circumstantial evidence

26. Suffice it to say that, as emerging from the impugned judgments of the trial Court and the High Court, the case of the prosecution pertaining to the murder of Smt. Aruna is based purely on circumstantial evidence. Insofar as the appellantPooranmal is concerned, the prosecution’s case rests upon following three incriminating circumstances: –

i. Call detail records indicating continuous and frequent conversation between the appellant-Pooranmal and co-convict Ladu Lal corresponding to the time of the incident.

ii. The recovery of blood-stained shirt, having same blood group as that of Smt. Aruna, in furtherance of the disclosure made by the appellant-Pooranmal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Proviso to Section 23 of the BSA].

iii. The recovery of currency notes totalling Rs.46,000/-, purportedly paid by co-convict Ladu Lal to the appellant-Pooranmal for committing murder of Smt. Aruna.

Judgment reference on circumstantial evidence

27. The law governing cases resting on circumstantial evidence is no longer res integra. It would, therefore, be apposite to advert to the salient principles enunciated by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the parameters for appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been authoritatively and succinctly laid down:-

“para. 153…”

28. Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, we shall now proceed to examine and analyse the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the circumstances relied upon by it for bringing home the guilt of the appellant-Pooranmal.

I. Recovery of Currency Notes

Discrepancy regarding exact amount of currency notes recovery: 29. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that there is a grave discrepancy regarding the exact amount of currency notes recovered by the Investigating Officer (PW.22) purportedly in furtherance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant-Pooranmal.

30. Whilst in the examination-in-chief, the Investigating Officer (PW.22) deposed that the appellant-Pooranmal furnished an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Proviso to Section 23 of the BSA] regarding receipt of the amount of Rs.46,000/- (Ex. P-44) from Ladu Lal pursuant to a plan to commit the murder of Smt. Aruna.

31. The Investigating Officer (PW.22) further stated that in consequence of the said disclosure, as also another disclosure pertaining to the shirt allegedly worn at the time of the incident, the appellant-Pooranmal led the police party to his residence and got recovered a shirt (suspected to be blood-stained) kept in an iron box. The said recovery was reduced into writing vide memo (Ex. P-9), and the shirt was sealed at the spot. Further as per the information given by the appellant-Pooranmal, a sum of Rs.46,000/- was recovered from his house and was seized vide memo (Ex. P-13). The said amount was also sealed at the spot.

Counting of currency notes in court is differ from the recovery: 32. In cross-examination, the Investigating Officer (PW.22) admitted that though on the chit of material exhibit (Ex. P-52), the currency notes were mentioned as Rs.46,000/-, but when the notes were counted in Court, it was noticed that the amount was Rs.46,145/-. The Investigating Officer (PW.22) admitted that there was no mention of these extra Rs.145 on the packet marked as (Ex. P-52).

Recovery of currency notes is doubtful: 33. Thus, the very factum of recovery of the currency notes comes under a grave cloud of doubt. That apart, mere recovery of currency notes, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing a clear nexus between the said amount and the crime, would not by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against the appellant-Pooranmal. Thus, the said circumstance was wrongly treated to be incriminating by the trial Court as the recovery itself is doubtful and additionally, the mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence.

II. Recovery Of Blood-Stained Shirt

Recovery of blood stained shirt was seized based on the disclosure of the appellant: 34. The second incriminating article recovered at the instance of the appellant-Pooranmal was the blood-stained shirt which upon being analysed at the FSL purportedly gave a positive test for the presence of the same blood group (O) as that of the deceased Aruna. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW.22), it transpires that the recovery of the shirt was effected in furtherance of the disclosure statement of the appellant-Pooranmal (Ex. P-43). The recovery memo of the shirt was proved as (Ex. P-9).

How to prove the FSL report? Explained

Prosecution must prove the custody of sealed article from the time of seizure till they reach the FSL

36. The recovery of the shirt was held to be incriminating based on the FSL report (Ex. P-49) as per which the blood stains on the shirt tested positive for the presence of O blood group being the same as that of the deceased-Aruna. For treating the FSL report (Ex. P-49) to be admissible, the prosecution would have to prove the complete chain of custody establishing the sanctity of the sealed articles right from the time of the seizure till the time they reached the FSL. In this regard, we would like to refer to the evidence of the following witnesses:-

“………”

43. In Karandeep Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, this Court emphasised that for a DNA/FSL report to be acceptable and reliable, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody and demonstrate that the samples remained duly sealed and untampered throughout, and held as follows:-

“54. In order to make the DNA report acceptable, reliable and admissible, the prosecution would first be required to prove the sanctity and chain of custody of the samples/articles right from the time of their preparation/collection till the time they reached the FSL. For this purpose, the link evidence would have to be established by examining the concerned witness.

55. Evidently, there is not even a semblance of evidence on record to satisfy the Court that the samples/articles collected from the dead body of the child-victim and those collected from the appellant which were later forwarded to the FSL were properly sealed or that the same remained in a self-same condition right from the time of the seizure till they reached the FSL. No witness from the FSL was examined by the prosecution to prove that the samples/articles were received in a sealed condition. Hence, there is every possibility of the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers so as to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby, inculpating the appellant in the crime.”

Requisite evidence to prove the chain of custody of sealed article is lacking

44. In view of the analysis of evidence made above, we are of the firm view that the requisite link evidence essential to prove the safe-keeping and sanctity of the muddamal articles is lacking and the chain of custody has been breached beyond reprieve, thereby, making the FSL report (Ex. P-49) redundant and a worthless piece of paper.

Judgment reference: 45. Moreover, this Court in Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat, expounded that even if the FSL report establishes that the blood group detected on the article recovered at the instance of the accused matches that of the deceased, such circumstance by itself is not sufficient to link the said accused with the crime. This Court observed as follows:-

“42. The trial court as well as the High Court heavily relied upon the FSL reports (Exts. 111-115) for finding corroboration to the evidence of the eyewitnesses and in drawing a conclusion regarding culpability of the appellants for the crime. We may reiterate that the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses has already been discarded above by holding the same to be doubtful. Thus, even presuming that the FSL reports (Exts. 111- 115) conclude that the blood group found on the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused matched with the blood group of the deceased, this circumstance in isolation, cannot be considered sufficient so as to link the accused with the crime.

43. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan [Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , wherein this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused. The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow : (SCC p. 730, para 19)

“19. The AB blood group which was found on the clothes of the deceased does not by itself establish the guilt of the appellant unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the appellants. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could establish that fact. The blood found on the sword recovered at the instance of Mustkeem was not sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated. At any rate, due to the reasons elaborated in the following paragraphs, the fact that the traces of blood found on the deceased matched those found on the recovered weapons cannot ipso facto enable us to arrive at the conclusion that the latter were used for the murder.” (Emphasis Supplied)

FSL report of blood found in the shirt recovered is that of accused, which is not incriminating

46. Thus, even if the FSL report (Ex. P-49) shows that the blood found on the shirt allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant-Pooranmal matches that of the deceased-Aruna, such finding would by itself not be incriminating in the absence of other cogent and corroborative evidence completing the chain of circumstances.

47. Thus, neither the recovery of the currency notes is reliable, nor the recovery of the shirt inspires confidence. In addition thereto, the link evidence having not been proved, the FSL report (Ex. P-49) pales into insignificance.

III. Call detail records

Call detail records of the appellant produced by the prosecution

48. The last and final piece of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charges against the appellant-Pooranmal pertains to the call detail records.

Analysing provision regarding Electronic Evidence

49. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] mandates that electronic evidence in form of a computer output (call detail records) can only be admitted in evidence upon satisfaction of the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act [Section 63(4) of the BSA], which reads as follows: –

“(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. (Emphasis supplied)

Referring celebrated judgment Anvar P.V vs. P.K.Basheer

50. This position of law was cemented by this Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, wherein it was held as follows:

Paragraphs 14 to 18”

Arjun Panditrao Kotkar case reference

51. Subsequently, this Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, reaffirmed and clarified the position laid down in Anvar P.V. (supra), observing that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] for admissibility of electronic evidence is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with, and held as follows:-

“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 “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.”

Certificate under section 65-B IEA not proved by the prosecution

52. Admittedly, in the present case, the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] was not proved by the prosecution. In the absence of the certificate, mandatorily required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA], the call detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to support the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

Prosecution failed to establish the incriminating circumstances

53. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the guilt of the appellant-Pooranmal. Neither were the socalled incriminating circumstances proved by cogent and admissible evidence, nor do they form an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the appellant-Pooranmal.

54. As an upshot of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the appellant-Pooranmal and the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny.

55. Consequently, conviction of the appellantPooranmal as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned judgments are hereby set aside. The appellant-Pooranmal is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

56. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.  

References

Judgments involved or cited

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984 4 SCC 116): Cited to outline the five mandatory conditions (the “panchsheel”) that must be fulfilled to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973 2 SCC 793): Cited within the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda framework to emphasize the “legal distinction” between evidence that shows an accused “may be” guilty versus “must be” guilty.
• Karandeep Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 773): Cited to establish that the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody for DNA or FSL reports to be reliable.
• Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024 9 SCC 546): Cited to show that a matching blood group on a recovered article is insufficient to link an accused to a crime without other corroborative evidence.
• Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (2011 11 SCC 724): Cited to reinforce that the recovery of a blood-stained weapon cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless directly connected to the murder.
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014 10 SCC 473): Cited to establish that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is a mandatory requirement for the admissibility of electronic records.
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020 7 SCC 1): Cited to reaffirm that the Section 65-B certificate is a “condition precedent” to admissibility that cannot be replaced by oral evidence.
• Taylor v. Taylor (1875 LR 1 Ch D 426): A hallowed legal principle cited regarding the requirement that secondary evidence is only admissible if led in the specific manner prescribed by law.

Acts and Sections

Substantive Penal Laws

• Section 302 of the IPC [Section 103(1) of the BNS]: Pertains to the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the IPC [Section 3(5) of the BNS]: Relates to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 201 of the IPC [Section 238 of the BNS]: Concerning the causing of disappearance of evidence of an offence.
• Section 460 of the IPC [Section 331(8) of the BNS]: Relating to house-breaking by night where death or grievous hurt is caused.

Procedural and Evidence Laws

• Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Proviso to Section 23 of the BSA]: Pertains to how much information received from an accused may be proved, specifically regarding “discovery” or “disclosure” statements.
• Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA]: Establishes the mandatory requirements and certificate for the admissibility of electronic records (Call Detail Records).
• Section 106 of the Evidence Act [Section 109 of the BSA]: Regarding the burden of proving a fact especially within the knowledge of a person.
• Section 313 of the CrPC [Section 351 of the BNSS]: Relating to the power of the Court to examine the accused to explain incriminating circumstances.
• Section 45-A of the Evidence Act: Mentioned regarding the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
• Sections 59 and 65-A of the Evidence Act: Cited in the context of proving documentary evidence by way of electronic records.

Party

Pooranmal versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr - Criminal Appeal No(s). 1266 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1977 of 2026) - 2026 INSC 217 - March 10, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria.