Facts
On the night intervening 2nd–3rd March 2010, Smt. Aruna (wife of co-accused Ladu Lal) was murdered inside her house in Bijolia, Rajasthan. Ladu Lal himself lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-40), claiming that unknown persons had entered the house, killed his wife by causing a head injury, and stolen approximately ₹4 lakh from the almirah.
During investigation, suspicion fell on Ladu Lal himself. He was arrested and made a disclosure statement naming Pooranmal (appellant) as the person who committed the murder on his behalf. Pooranmal was arrested on 4 March 2010. The prosecution alleged that Pooranmal committed the murder for money given by Ladu Lal (alleged contract killing / hired killer).
Following alleged disclosure statements by Pooranmal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act:
- Recovery of one blood-stained shirt from an iron box at his house (Ex.P-9)
- Recovery of ₹46,000 in cash from his house (Ex.P-13)
The FSL report stated that the shirt bore human blood of group ‘O’, the same as deceased Aruna’s blood group. Call Detail Records (CDRs) of two mobile numbers allegedly belonging to Pooranmal and Ladu Lal showed frequent conversations around the time of the incident.
Both accused were charged under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC. The Trial Court (2012) convicted both and awarded life imprisonment along with 7 years RI (to run concurrently).
The High Court (2018) dismissed the criminal appeal. The SLP filed by co-accused Ladu Lal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2022. The present appeal was filed by Pooranmal (through legal aid) after an enormous delay, which was condoned.
Issues
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence against appellant Pooranmal was fully proved and complete so as to exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence?
- Whether the recoveries of the blood-stained shirt and ₹46,000 were reliable and incriminating?
- Whether the FSL report linking the blood on the shirt to the deceased could be relied upon in view of breaks in the chain of custody?
- Whether call detail records were admissible in the absence of a mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act?
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and High Court call for interference?
Analysis
Appellant – Pooranmal (through counsel)
- The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence; there is no direct evidence connecting the appellant to the crime.
- Recovery of the shirt is highly unnatural and improbable:
- The appellant was free for approximately two days after the crime.
- There was no reason for him to hide a blood-stained shirt in an iron box instead of destroying or washing it.
- There was a serious break in the chain of custody of the shirt:
- Conflicting versions were given by the Malkhana In-charge (PW-19) and the Carrier Constable (PW-16).
- Articles were sent to FSL earlier (12/15 March) but returned due to defects; the reason was not explained.
- Official entries (Ex.D-3) contradict oral evidence, indicating a broken chain of custody.
- Therefore, the FSL report is unreliable and inadmissible.
- Even if the blood group ‘O’ matches, it is a common blood group; mere matching is insufficient without additional linking evidence (reliance placed on Mustkeem and Allarakha Habib Memon judgments).
- Recovery of ₹46,000 is doubtful:
- Discrepancy in amount (₹46,000 mentioned vs ₹46,145 counted in court).
- No independent evidence proves that this money was given by Ladu Lal as consideration for murder.
- Call Detail Records are inadmissible:
- No certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act was produced.
- Judgments in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) make such certification mandatory.
- Oral evidence of nodal officers cannot cure this defect.
- No explanation by the appellant was necessary, as no incriminating circumstance was properly proved in the first place.
Respondent – State
- The SLP of co-accused Ladu Lal has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court; the same judgment should bind Pooranmal.
- Recoveries were made at the instance of Pooranmal under Section 27:
- Blood-stained shirt
- ₹46,000 in cash
- The FSL report confirmed blood group ‘O’ (same as the deceased); the appellant failed to explain the presence of blood, inviting an adverse inference.
- Frequent CDR calls between Pooranmal and Ladu Lal near the time of the crime are highly incriminating.
- Nodal officers (PW-23 and PW-24) were examined; non-production of a Section 65-B certificate is not fatal when oral evidence is available.
- Possession of a large amount of cash (₹46,000) soon after the murder by a poor person shifts the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act; no satisfactory explanation was provided.
- There are concurrent findings by two courts; no perversity is shown, so interference is unwarranted.
Final Judgment (Supreme Court – 10 March 2026)
- The prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing solely to the guilt of Pooranmal.
- Recovery of currency notes is doubtful due to discrepancy in amount and lack of nexus with the crime.
- Recovery of the blood-stained shirt is unreliable and unnatural, with a serious breach in the chain of custody; the FSL report cannot be relied upon.
- Call detail records are inadmissible in the absence of a mandatory Section 65-B certificate.
- None of the three circumstances (CDR, shirt, cash), either individually or collectively, form a complete chain excluding the reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
- The conviction of Pooranmal under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC cannot be sustained.
- The impugned judgments of the Trial Court and High Court are set aside.
- Appellant Pooranmal is acquitted of all charges.
- He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
- Appeal allowed.
Bench: Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, N.V. Anjaria