POORANMALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

                 [2026] 3 S.C.R. 314 : 2026 INSC 217

                              Pooranmal
                                   v.
                     The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2026)
                                10 March 2026
      [Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the conviction of the appellant-P based solely on
       circumstantial evidence as convicted by the trial court and upheld by
       the High Court could be sustained in law. Whether the incriminating
       evidence are proved by cogent and admissible evidence, forming
       an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the
       appellant.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34, 201 – Bhartatiya Nyaya
       Sanhita, 2023 – ss.103(1)/3(5) – Circumstantial evidence –
       Recoveries – Appellant-P along with one L, committed murder
       of wife of L – Appellant-P and L were convicted by the trial
       Court for the offence punishable u/ss.302/34 and s.201 of
       the Penal Code, 1860 – The common appeal preferred by the
       accused persons against their conviction was rejected by the
       High Court – SLP filed by L was dismissed by this Court in
       limine – The appellant-P 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 – Interference
       warranted or not:
       Held: As emerging from the impugned judgments of the trial
       Court and the High Court, the case of the prosecution pertaining
       to the murder is based purely on circumstantial evidence viz. call
       detail records, recovery of blood-stained shirt and the recovery of
       currency notes – The law governing cases resting on circumstantial
       evidence is no longer res integra – 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 – The
       said circumstance was wrongly treated to be incriminating by the

* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                               315

               Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


     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 – The second
     incriminating article recovered was blood-stained shirt – Even if
     the FSL report shows that the blood found on the shirt allegedly
     recovered at the instance of the appellant matches that of the
     deceased, such finding would by itself not be incriminating in the
     absence of other cogent and corroborative evidence completing the
     chain of circumstances – The last and final piece of circumstantial
     evidence is call details records – In the present case, the certificate
     u/s.65-B of the Evidence Act [s.63 of the BSA] was not proved by
     the prosecution – In the absence of the certificate, mandatorily
     required u/s.65-B of the Evidence Act [s.63 of the BSA], the call
     detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be
     relied upon to support the prosecution’s case – 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 – Thus, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the
     trial Court and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained – The
     impugned judgments are hereby set aside. [Paras 26, 27, 33, 52-55]

                               Case Law Cited
     Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR
     88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Karandeep Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v.
     State of Uttarakhand [2025] 3 SCR 1482 : 2025 SCC OnLine
     SC 773; Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat [2024] 8
     SCR 345 : (2024) 9 SCC 546; Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer [2014]
     11 SCR 399 : (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
     Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [2020] 7 SCR 180 : (2020) 7
     SCC 1 – relied on.

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Bharatiya Sakshya
     Adhiniyam, 2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
     Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bhartatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                              List of Keywords
     Circumstantial evidence; Chain of custody; Corroborative
     evidence; Unbroken chain of custody; Call details records;
     Recovery of blood-stained cloth; Recovery of currency notes;
316                                                            [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                                      Supreme Court Reports


       Electronic evidence; Requirement of certificate u/s.65-B of
       Evidence Act; Admissibility of electronic evidence; Coherent chain
       of incriminating circumstances.

                                          Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1266 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2018 of the High Court
       of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCRA No. 238 of 2012

                                     Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Yuvraj Kashyap, Ms. Vijetha J., Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Kartikeya Asthana, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal.

                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                  Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     The appellant, Pooranmal1, 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, Rajasthan2.
       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, 18603 [Sections 103
       (1)/3(5) of the Bhartatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234] 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


1    Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-Pooranmal”.
2    Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
3    Hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’.
4    Hereinafter, referred to as ‘BNS’.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                           317

                     Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


       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.
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 Jodhpur5
       vide judgment and order dated 16th March, 2018. It may 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.
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, 18726
       (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
7.     Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of this
       appeal are noted hereinbelow.


5    Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.
6    Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Evidence Act’.
7    Hereinafter, referred to as ‘BSA’.
318                                                                [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


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.
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.
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.


8    Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Investigating Officer (PW.22)’.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                        319

                    Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


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.
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.
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.
14. As stated above, the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 8th
    February, 2012 convicted and sentenced the appellant-Pooranmal
    and the co-accused for the offences mentioned above.9
15. The appeal preferred by the appellant-Pooranmal 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.

     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Pooranmal, vehemently
    and fervently contended that the conviction of the appellant-Pooranmal
    recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the High Court, is
    based purely on conjectures and surmises. It was submitted that


9   Supra para 3.
320                                                         [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


       the prosecution’s case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and
       that there is no credible or reliable evidence on record of the case
       so as to connect the appellant-Pooranmal with the alleged crime.
17. The learned counsel urged that the recovery of the blood-stained
    shirt allegedly made at the instance of the appellant-Pooranmal does
    not inspire confidence. The call detail records cannot be admitted in
    evidence because the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of
    the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] was never proved.
18. The learned counsel further contended that the recovery of the
    currency notes cannot be treated to be incriminating because there
    is no credible evidence to show that these currency notes had,
    as a matter of fact, been given to the appellant-Pooranmal by the
    co-convict Ladu Lal for committing the murder of Smt. Aruna.

       SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
19. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State opposed the
    submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. It was submitted
    that the special leave petition filed by the co-convict against the
    self-same impugned judgment, having been rejected by this Court,
    there is no reason for this Court to take a different view in the case
    of the appellant-Pooranmal.
20. It was further submitted that the Investigating Officer (PW.22) has
    given unimpeachable evidence proving the grave incriminating
    recoveries of the blood-stained shirt and the currency notes made
    at the instance of the appellant-Pooranmal. The shirt upon being
    examined at the serological department of the Forensic Science
    Laboratory10 tested positive (FSL Report Ex. P-49) for the presence
    of the same blood group (O) as that of the deceased-Aruna. The
    appellant-Pooranmal failed to offer any explanation as to how the
    shirt worn by him at the time of the incident was bearing stains of
    the same blood group as that of the deceased-Aruna. The failure
    of the appellant-Pooranmal to offer any explanation to this gravely
    incriminating circumstance requires drawing of adverse inference.
21. It was further submitted that the call detail records are gravely
    incriminating. The appellant-Pooranmal failed to offer any explanation


10   Hereinafter, referred to as ‘FSL’.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                         321

               Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


     for the extensive contact with the main accused Ladu Lal proximate
     to the time of the occurrence. Thus, these incriminating call detail
     records were rightly relied upon by the trial Court and the High Court
     for drawing the inference of guilt against the appellant-Pooranmal.
22. It was further contended that the call detail records were proved
    by the nodal officers of the service providers, i.e. Vibhor Rastogi
    (PW.23) and Saurabh Kumar (PW.24) and hence, non-production
    of the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63
    of the BSA] pales into insignificance. Mere non-production of the
    certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the
    BSA] in this case cannot be treated to be fatal to the prosecution’s
    case, particularly, when the call detail records have been duly proved
    by examining the employees of the service providers i.e., Vodafone
    and Bharati Hexacom Ltd./Bharati Heckjakom Ltd.
23. The learned counsel also urged that the appellant-Pooranmal hails
    from a poor family and as such, his being in possession of such a
    large sum of money soon after the incident is a gravely incriminating
    circumstance for which the appellant-Pooranmal could not offer
    any explanation. Thus, by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act
    [Section 109 of the BSA], the burden shifted on to the appellant-
    Pooranmal to explain as to how he came into possession of the huge
    sum of money recovered from his house pursuant to the disclosure
    made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Proviso to
    Section 23 of the BSA].
24. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submitted that the
    concurrent and well-reasoned findings recorded against the accused
    by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, i.e. convicting the
    appellant-Pooranmal and upholding his conviction do not warrant
    interference. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeal.

     ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
25. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
    learned counsel for the appellant-Pooranmal and learned standing
    counsel appearing for the State. We have also carefully perused the
    impugned judgments and sifted the evidence available on record.
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
322                                                              [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       the murder of Smt. Aruna is based purely on circumstantial evidence.
       Insofar as the appellant-Pooranmal 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.
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 Maharashtra11, wherein the parameters for
    appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been authoritatively
    and succinctly laid down:-
              “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: [SCC
                    para 19, p. 807]


11   (1984) 4 SCC 116.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                      323

               Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


                “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
                accused must be and not merely may be guilty
                before a court can convict 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.”
                                               (Emphasis Supplied)

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
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]
324                                                         [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       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.
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).
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
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).
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                       325

               Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


35. We may observe that the appellant-Pooranmal herein was a free
    bird since the day of incident i.e. from intervening night of 2nd and
    3rd March, 2010 until 4th March, 2010, when he came to be formally
    arrested in connection with the present case, after being implicated
    by the co-convict Ladu Lal. The recovery memo (Ex. P-9) indicates
    that the appellant-Pooranmal had meticulously concealed the shirt
    in an iron box and when the same was recovered, it was bearing
    blood stains. To our mind, it is highly improbable and unnatural that
    the appellant-Pooranmal, who was a free bird, would have taken
    such great pains to conceal the shirt so meticulously rather than
    simply destroying it by burning. Furthermore, even if the appellant-
    Pooranmal was desirous of preserving the shirt, all that was required
    to obliterate the blood stains was to wash the same. Hence, we are
    of the firm view that the recovery of the shirt is totally unreliable.
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:-

     a.    Mathura Singh (P.W.19)
37. Mathura Singh (PW.19), the Head Constable in-charge of the
    malkhana at Police Station Bijolia, stated that on 6th March, 2010
    the Investigating Officer (PW.22) deposited blood-stained tissues
    and shirt in a sealed cloth bag. An entry to this effect was made in
    the malkhana register at Serial No. 227. On 7th March, 2010, the
    Investigating Officer (PW.22) deposited a sealed bag containing 46
    notes of Rs.1,000/- each, totalling Rs. 46,000/-. The witness (PW.19)
    stated that these articles, which also included the articles/samples
    recovered from the crime scene and the t-shirt recovered at the
    instance of the co-convict Ladu Lal, bearing marks A, B, C, L, M
    (totalling five), were forwarded with constable Surender Singh (PW.16)
    to SP office Bhilwara on 15th March, 2010 for being deposited at the
    FSL accompanied by requisite documents. However, because the
    FSL forwarding letter was not yet prepared, the said articles were
326                                                             [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       returned and handed back to said witness (PW.19) who redeposited
       the same in the malkhana with an endorsement made in the malkhana
       register (Ex. P-37).
38. These very articles were again taken out from the malkhana on
    18th March, 2010 and handed over to Surender Singh (PW.16) for
    delivery to FSL. Surender Singh (PW.16) proceeded to Udaipur
    and deposited the samples at the FSL on 19th March, 2010. He
    thereafter returned on 20th March, 2010 along with the receipt
    evidencing such deposit.
39. The witness (PW.19) was confronted with the malkhana entry in his
    cross-examination and stated as below: -
            “It is wrong to say that I had given the material to Surendra
            Singh on 12.3.10 for taking to F.S.L. and that due to some
            shortage in it, the material were returned on 15.3.l0. Ex.D.3
            The copy of the Malkhana which was attached with the
            challan in the file, in the C-D part of which it is written that
            the material were sent on 12.3.10 is wrong.”

       b.   Surendra Singh (P.W.16)
40. The Carrier Constable, Surender Singh (PW.16), emphatically stated
    that he carried the malkhana articles to the FSL on 18th March, 2010,
    deposited them at the FSL, Udaipur on 19th March, 2010 and brought
    back the receipt. In his cross-examination, the witness (PW.16) stated
    that he did not recollect taking the same articles to the S.P. office on
    12th March, 2010. He was confronted with the malkhana register (Ex.
    D-3), which records that he had been handed the samples on 12th
    March, 2010 and had attempted to deposit them at the S.P. Office
    on 15th March, 2010. However, he feigned ignorance as to the said
    entry recorded in the official document (Ex.D-3).
41. On a holistic appreciation of the evidence of these two witnesses,
    it becomes clear that there is a grave discrepancy regarding the
    safe-keeping/chain of custody of the muddamal articles. It is clearly
    discernible from the evidence of Mathura Singh (PW.19) that the
    muddamal articles were sent out of the police station prior to 18th
    March, 2010, to be precise on 15th March, 2010, but the same
    were returned from the FSL because of some defects. The precise
    reason for return of the muddamal articles is not forthcoming in the
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                            327

                  Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


      evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Carrier Constable (PW.16)
      categorically denied having carried the samples on any date prior
      to 18th March, 2010.
42. The entry made in the malkhana register (Ex. D-3) with which both
    the witnesses were confronted, completely demolishes the versions
    of PW.19 and PW.16. In this entry, it is clearly recorded that the
    muddamal articles were forwarded to the FSL on 12th March, 2010.
    Utter failure of the prosecution to disclose as to the reasons for which
    the samples were returned from the FSL breaches the unbroken
    chain of custody mandatorily required to prove the safe keeping of
    the muddamal articles.
43. In Karandeep Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v. State of
    Uttarakhand12, 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.”


12   2025 SCC OnLine SC 773.
328                                                             [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


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.
45. Moreover, this Court in Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of
    Gujarat13, 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


13   (2024) 9 SCC 546.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                             329

                Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


                 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)

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
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.
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, --
330                                                             [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


                    (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)

50. This position of law was cemented by this Court in the case of Anvar
    P.V. v. P.K. Basheer14, wherein it was held as follows: -
             “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic
             record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59
             and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the
             procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B
             deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The
             purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary
             evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It
             may be noted that the section starts with a non obstante
             clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the
             Evidence 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



14   (2014) 10 SCC 473.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                           331

               Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


           computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the
           conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied,
           without further proof or production of the original. The very
           admissibility of such a document i.e. electronic record which
           is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction
           of the four conditions under Section 65-B(2). Following
           are the specified conditions under Section 65-B(2) of the
           Evidence Act:
                (i) The electronic record containing the
                information should have been produced by
                the computer during the period over which the
                same was regularly used to store or process
                information for the purpose of any activity
                regularly carried on over that period by the
                person having lawful control over the use of
                that computer;
                (ii) The information of the kind contained in
                electronic record or of the kind from which the
                information is derived was regularly fed into
                the computer in the ordinary course of the said
                activity;
                (iii) During the material part of the said period,
                the computer was operating properly and that
                even if it was not operating properly for some
                time, the break or breaks had not affected either
                the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
                (iv) The information contained in the record
                should be a reproduction or derivation from the
                information fed into the computer in the ordinary
                course of the said activity.
           15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is
           desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining
           to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the
           following conditions are satisfied:
                (a) There must be a certificate which identifies
                the electronic record containing the statement;
332                                                         [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


            (b) The certificate must describe the manner
            in which the electronic record was produced;
            (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars
            of the device involved in the production of that
            record;
            (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable
            conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of
            the Evidence Act; and
            (e) The certificate must be signed by a person
            occupying a responsible official position in
            relation to the operation of the relevant device.
       16. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in
       the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge
       and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must
       accompany the electronic record like computer printout,
       compact disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD), pen drive,
       etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given
       in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All
       these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and
       authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to
       electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic
       records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration,
       transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the
       whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead
       to travesty of justice.
       17. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms
       of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, would the question
       arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation,
       resort can be made to Section 45-A—opinion of Examiner
       of Electronic Evidence.
       18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit
       the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if
       requirements under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act
       are not complied with, as the law now stands in India.”
                                                (Emphasis Supplied)
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                               333

                   Pooranmal v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.


51. Subsequently, this Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash
    Kushanrao Gorantyal15, reaffirmed and clarified the position laid
    down in Anvar P.V. (supra), observing that the requirement of a
    certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of
    the BSA] for admissibility of electronic evidence is mandatory and
    cannot be dispensed with, 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.”
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
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


15   (2020) 7 SCC 1.
334                                                        [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       of the appellant-Pooranmal. Neither were the so-called incriminating
       circumstances proved by cogent and admissible evidence, nor do
       they form an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt
       of the appellant-Pooranmal.
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 appellant-Pooranmal 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.
57. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan