The Supreme Court has acquitted Pooranmal in a 2010 murder case, ruling that Call Detail Records (CDRs) cannot be relied upon as evidence unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam). A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria set aside the conviction and life sentence upheld by the Rajasthan High Court, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution had alleged that the appellant conspired with the victim’s husband to commit the murder. To establish the conspiracy, it heavily relied on CDRs showing frequent mobile contact between the two accused around the time of the incident. However, no certificate under Section 65-B(4) was produced to authenticate these electronic records.

Observing that production of the certificate is mandatory, the Court held:
“…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.”

The bench reaffirmed the position laid down in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, noting that oral testimony of telecom nodal officers cannot substitute the statutory certificate. It categorically held:
“Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.”

With the CDRs rendered inadmissible, the prosecution’s case rested solely on other circumstantial evidence — recovery of a blood-stained shirt allegedly matching the deceased’s blood group and recovery of ₹46,000 claimed to have been paid to the appellant for committing the murder.

The Court found serious flaws in both. The money allegedly recovered from the appellant’s house was counted in court as ₹46,145, creating doubt about the very factum of recovery. Mere recovery of currency notes, without any link to the crime, was held not to be an incriminating circumstance.

The blood-stained shirt was also discarded because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Discrepancies in police witnesses’ testimony and malkhana register entries showed that the samples had been sent out and returned before being forwarded to the FSL, with no explanation offered. Consequently, the FSL report was declared “redundant and a worthless piece of paper.”

Reiterating the principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant and excluding every other hypothesis.

Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Pooranmal versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr.