SC Acquits Appellant in Murder Case, Holds That Suspicious Circumstances and Uncorroborated WhatsApp Messages Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

In a judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Trial Court, which had convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Justice Manoj Misra, speaking for the bench, held that in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, unverified hearsay text messages, flawed seizures without DNA profiling, and speculative presumptions cannot bridge the vital gap between “may be true” and “must be true”.

Background

• The Incident: On the morning of February 9, 2019, witnesses found a man later identified as Saurabh Panda (the deceased) lying dead in an open field beside his motorcycle and a yellow rope. Initially reported as an accidental death, an autopsy revealed head injuries and suggested a homicidal death, leading to an FIR against unknown persons.
• The Investigation & Charges: During the investigation, the police seized mobile phones belonging to Sunil Kumar Sahu (PW-5) and Shakrajit Patel (PW-6). Cyber cells extracted deleted WhatsApp messages exchanged between them in the intervening night of February 8, 2019, which allegedly implicated the appellant, Kusumlal Sao. Based on a subsequent disclosure statement, the police claimed to recover an iron rod, a screwdriver, blood-stained soil, and a shirt from the appellant’s house.
• Judicial Track: The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on March 30, 2024, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2024.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Evidentiary Value of Extracted WhatsApp Messages

• Hearsay and Lack of Direct Proof: The prosecution heavily relied on WhatsApp chats where PW-5 messaged PW-6 stating that the appellant had beaten the deceased in his home. However, both PW-5 and PW-6 turned hostile during the trial, with PW-5 denying sending the text or having any knowledge of the incident.
• The Supreme Court held that in the absence of the author’s substantiation, whether the text was based on personal knowledge, rumor, or speculation remained unanswered. Such digital extractions, without substantive corroboration, at best created a weak suspicion and could not serve as concrete proof of a murderous assault.

2. Flawed Seizures and Failure of DNA Profiling

• Contradictory Witness Testimony: While the prosecution claimed blood-stained soil was recovered from the appellant’s room, seizure witness PW-12 contradicted this by testifying that soil was collected only from where the body was found in the open field, exposing serious cleavages in the police case.
• Absence of DNA Testing: The FSL report confirmed that blood group determinations were inconclusive and stains were decomposed. The Court strongly criticized the investigating agency’s complete lack of effort to obtain DNA profiles to match recovered blood traces with the blood of the deceased, ruling that such investigative lapses must benefit the accused in a circumstantial evidence case.

3. Plausible Accident Theory and Standard of Proof

• Medical Evidence: The autopsy surgeon (PW-25) admitted during cross-examination that the injuries sustained by the deceased could equally have been caused by a fall from a moving motorcycle. Given that the deceased was a known substance abuser and his motorcycle was discovered right beside his body, the defense’s accident theory remained entirely probable.
• The “May Be” vs. “Must Be” Standard: Re-emphasizing foundational tenets from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade, the Court reiterated that the mental distance between “may be guilty” and “must be guilty” divides vague conjectures from judicial certainty.

Final Judgment

• Appeal Allowed: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the Chhattisgarh High Court as well as the Trial Court.
• Acquittal: Appellant Kusumlal Sao is acquitted of all charges.
• Release Order: The Court directed that the appellant be released from custody forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Citation: Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026 INSC 1148)