The Supreme Court docket on Thursday (03.09.2026) acquitted the (sole surviving) convict in a kidnapping for ransom and homicide case, holding that the prosecution’s investigation was shoddy and rested on inadmissible confessions and an unsubstantiated “story”, relatively than on legally proved proof.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ok Vinod Chandran was listening to an attraction filed by the accused 1 (A1), whose conviction had been affirmed by the Excessive Court docket even after it acquitted 4 of his 5 co-accused.
It was alleged that the sufferer went untraceable as he left his house for Hyderabad, following which his father (PW1) acquired a ransom name. Subsequently, a police criticism was registered and Rs 1,50,000 was deposited to a checking account belonging to the accused. Name information led to accused 6 (A6). Thereafter, A6 was arrested and his confession led to the restoration of the sufferer’s physique which was hid inside a fridge. The confession additionally led to different co-accused (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5). The trial court docket convicted A1(appellant), A2, A3, A5, and A6 whereas A4 died in the course of the trial itself. Nonetheless, the Excessive Court docket acquitted A2, A3, A5, and A6, whereas confirming the conviction of the appellant. It’s to notice that appellant’s conviction was made counting on the testimony of PW 3 (a watchman within the house from the place the physique was recovered), and on appellant’s failure to elucidate the presence of the physique in a flat he had allegedly taken on lease, which was handled as an incriminating circumstance beneath Part 106 of the Indian Proof Act, 1872 (now Part 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Aggrieved by the Excessive Court docket, the appellant approached the Supreme Court docket.
The Supreme Court docket famous that the narrative of the accused’s position emerged solely from the confessions of the accused, that are inadmissible to inculpate co-accused. The Court docket noticed that “there was nothing to substantiate the above story however for the confessions, which positively can’t be relied on to inculpate any of the accused.”
The Court docket additionally affirmed the Excessive Court docket’s commentary that essential digital proof couldn’t be relied upon. The CCTV footage stated to indicate the accused withdrawing the ransom cash was discovered unreliable each as a result of the accused couldn’t be recognized from the footage and since no certificates beneath Part 65B of the Proof Act (now Part 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) was produced to show it. Additionally, the decision information relied upon weren’t proved in proof because the Nodal Officer of the telecom service supplier was by no means examined and no Part 65B certificates was produced. In such circumstances, the Court docket held that for the reason that name information have been by no means proved as per the legislation, the prosecution’s story fails.
“The prosecution case was that, it was on analyzing the decision information that PW11, the I.O, was led to A6, leading to his arrest and confession. The decision information having not been correctly proved via the Nodal Officer of the service supplier and no certificates beneath Part 65B having been produced and proved, the whole story of cautious evaluation of the decision information, falls flat,” the bench noticed.
The Court docket additionally famous that though A6 allegedly led the police to the house the place the physique was recovered, no impartial witness was examined. Since A6 was acquitted, his assertion which led to the alleged discovery couldn’t be used to incriminate A1 (appellant).
With respect to the cash allegedly withdrawn and recovered from A1 and A6, the Court docket discovered that the CCTV footage from the ATM couldn’t be proved for need of Part 65B certificates. Furthermore, the Court docket discovered that the account-holder of the account wherein the deposit was made, was by no means examined.
All in all, the Court docket held that there was no proof to depend on. “That the deceased died of asphyxia as a result of smothering, related to strangulation, is established by the autopsy report and the lifeless physique was detected, tucked away in a fridge inside an house. However for these, there is no such thing as a scrap of proof, worthy of reliance, to attach A1 to A6 to the homicide and even the flat. The IO positively was led by the confessions and failed to gather any substantive proof connecting the accused to the crime,” the Court docket held whereas setting apart the appellant’s conviction and directing his launch, except wished in some other case.
Case: Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar @ Madhu @ Gopi @ Chinna v State of Telangana
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 899
Look:
For Appellant: Mr Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR; Mr Mukesh Kumar, Adv; Mr Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Adv
For Respondent: Ms Devina Sehgal, AOR; Mr Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv; Mr Sankalp Varma, Adv
