Landmark Supreme Court Ruling: Acquittal in High-Profile Murder Case Highlights Critical Legal Safeguards

 

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling: Acquittal in High-Profile Murder Case Highlights Critical Legal Safeguards
By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

In a landmark judgment that underscores the paramount importance of procedural integrity in criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap, overturning his death sentence in a high-profile 2014 murder case. The Court’s decision, delivered on January 28, 2025, highlights the critical role of adhering to legal standards, particularly in cases involving electronic evidence.

Case Background

The case revolved around the tragic murder of a 23-year-old IT professional in Mumbai. The prosecution’s case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, with the Bombay High Court previously upholding the trial court’s decision to convict Sanap and sentence him to death. The prosecution heavily relied on CCTV footage to establish the accused’s presence at the crime scene and his alleged involvement in the crime. However, the Supreme Court found significant flaws in the handling of this electronic evidence, leading to Sanap’s acquittal.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the admissibility of the CCTV footage, which was central to the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that electronic evidence must comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates the submission of a certificate authenticating the electronic record. This certificate is crucial to ensure the integrity and reliability of digital evidence.

In this case, the prosecution failed to produce the required Section 65B certificate for the CCTV footage. The Court noted that this lapse rendered the footage inadmissible, as it could not be verified as a true and accurate representation of the events. The absence of this certificate was deemed a fatal flaw, particularly in a case where the death penalty was at stake.

The Court also highlighted the importance of the "last seen together" doctrine, which the prosecution attempted to use to link Sanap to the victim. However, the Court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to conclusively establish that Sanap was the last person seen with the victim. The witnesses’ testimonies were deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and delays in recording their statements, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which outline the requirements for convicting an accused based on circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that the circumstances must form a complete chain, pointing unequivocally to the guilt of the accused and excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

In this case, the Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard. The circumstantial evidence presented was disjointed and did not conclusively establish Sanap’s guilt. The Court also noted that the prosecution’s reliance on an extrajudicial confession was problematic, as such confessions are inherently weak and require corroboration, which was lacking in this instance.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the legal safeguards that must be upheld in criminal trials, especially in cases involving the death penalty. The Court’s decision underscores the necessity of meticulous adherence to procedural requirements, particularly in the handling of electronic evidence.

The ruling also highlights the importance of ensuring that convictions are based on evidence that is not only credible but also legally admissible. The absence of proper authentication for electronic evidence can lead to the collapse of a case, as seen in this instance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s acquittal of Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap is a significant development in Indian jurisprudence, reinforcing the principle that an accused cannot be convicted unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt through legally admissible evidence. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, emphasizing the need for rigorous adherence to legal standards in the collection and presentation of evidence.

This case also underscores the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional rights, ensuring that procedural lapses do not lead to wrongful convictions. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, particularly with the increasing reliance on digital evidence, this judgment will undoubtedly serve as a critical reference point for future cases.