The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of the sole remaining accused in a kidnapping-for-ransom and murder case, finding that the investigation failed to produce reliable evidence linking the accused to the crime.
The Court said the prosecution’s case was built largely around confessions and an investigative narrative that was never supported by legally admissible proof.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by the first accused, whose conviction had earlier been upheld by the High Court even as four of his co-accused were acquitted.
The case began with the disappearance of the victim, who had reportedly left home for Hyderabad. His father later received a ransom call, following which a police complaint was lodged. During the investigation, ₹1.50 lakh was deposited into a bank account allegedly connected to the accused.
Investigators claimed that an examination of call records led them to the sixth accused. After his arrest, the police said his statement led them to the victim’s body, which was found concealed inside a refrigerator in an apartment. The investigation subsequently brought several other accused into the case.
The trial court convicted the appellant along with four others, while one accused died during the proceedings. The High Court later acquitted four of those convicted but maintained the appellant’s conviction.
That decision rested substantially on the testimony of a watchman at the apartment complex and on the appellant’s alleged failure to explain how the victim’s body came to be found in a flat said to have been taken on lease by him.
The Supreme Court, however, found the foundation of the prosecution’s case deeply flawed.
It noted that the alleged chain of events connecting the accused to the crime emerged primarily from confessional statements. Such statements, the Court pointed out, could not be used to establish the guilt of co-accused in the manner sought by the prosecution.
According to the Court, there was no independent material capable of substantiating the story constructed during the investigation.
The Bench also examined the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution and found serious deficiencies.
CCTV footage allegedly showing the withdrawal of ransom money could not reliably identify the accused. More importantly, the footage had not been properly proved in accordance with the legal requirements governing electronic evidence.
The call records faced a similar problem. The telecom company’s Nodal Officer was not examined, and the necessary certificate required to establish the electronic records was not produced.
The Court said the prosecution itself claimed that the analysis of these call records had led investigators to the sixth accused. Once those records could not be legally proved, the very foundation of that investigative trail collapsed.
The alleged recovery of the victim’s body also failed to strengthen the case against the appellant. Although the sixth accused was said to have led the police to the apartment, no independent witness to the recovery was examined. Since that accused had already been acquitted, his alleged statement could not be used to implicate the appellant.
Questions also surrounded the alleged recovery of money. The ATM footage was not properly established as evidence, while the person in whose bank account the ransom amount had been deposited was never examined.
The Supreme Court ultimately found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving only two broad facts: that the victim had died due to asphyxia caused by smothering and strangulation, and that his body was later discovered inside a refrigerator in an apartment.
What remained missing, the Court found, was credible evidence connecting any of the accused to the murder or even conclusively linking them to the apartment where the body was recovered.
The Bench observed that the investigation appeared to have followed the confessions rather than independently gathering substantive evidence to establish the alleged chain of events.
Setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court directed the appellant’s release unless he was required to remain in custody in connection with any other case.
