CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1041 · Decided: 28-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1041 : 2025 INSC 116
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap 
v. 
The State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019)
28 January 2025
[B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and  
K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High 
Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder 
of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
Headnotes†
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Admissibility of 
evidence of witnesses and recovery – Admissibility of CCTV 
evidence – Requirement of certificate u/s.65 B(4) – On facts, 
conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 
364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 rw ss.397 and 201 IPC for rape 
and murder of the deceased and sentenced to death by the 
courts below – Hypothesis of guilt, if established on basis of 
the circumstantial evidence:
Held: There are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to 
the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what 
meets the eye – Circumstances relied upon when taken together do 
not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the 
chain is not complete – Test of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda’s case 
on circumstantial evidence not satisfied – Sustaining conviction 
based on this sketchy and disjointed evidence not justified – On 
the available evidence, extremely unsafe to sustain conviction 
against the appellant – Prosecution did not establish its case 
beyond reasonable doubt – Certificate u/s.65-B(4) is a condition 
precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic 
record – When the prosecution was aware of the need for the 
s.65-B (4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs, 
no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV 
* Author
1042
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
footage – No reliance can be placed on the CCTV footage, insofar 
as an attempt was made by the prosecution to attribute that the 
appellant and the deceased were last seen together based on the 
CCTV footage, and is eschewed the same from consideration – 
Evidence of the prosecution witnesses for the last seen together 
as well as evidence of the prosecution witnesses for sighting the 
appellant, fails to inspire the necessary confidence to clinchingly 
establish the circumstances of last seen – Test identification 
parade vitiated as the photographs of the appellants were all over 
the place in the media – Evidence of the dog walker to establish 
presence of the appellant in the vicinity of the crime unnatural – 
He is not the witness in the last seen category, but only claims to 
have seen the appellant under circumstances which are doubtful, 
thus, his evidence is discarded – Also, the evidence given by 
other prosecution witnesses do not constitute circumstantial 
evidence having any nexus with the commission of the crime, 
thus, totally discarded from the chain of circumstances – Extra 
judicial confession of the prosecution witness-so called friend of 
the appellant, by its very nature, is a weak piece of evidence and 
is rejected – There are so many omissions in the statement of 
the said prosecution witness, as also no corroboration in material 
particulars – Evidence of recovery of articles also not impressive – 
Furthermore, the prosecution not been able to answer the infirmities 
pointed out – Thus, no conviction for the offence charged could be 
sustained against the appellant – Impugned judgment set aside 
and the appellant is acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – Evidence 
Act, 1872. [Paras 49, 51, 70, 72, 75, 77, 81, 90, 104, 120, 121, 
123, 124]
Case Law Cited
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. [2014] 11 SCR 399 : (2014) 
10 SCC 473; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 
[1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – relied on.
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru [2005] 
Supp. 2 SCR 79 : (2005) 11 SCC 600; Shafhi Mohammad v. The 
State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801; Sonu @ Amar v. 
State of Haryana [2017] 8 SCR 151 : (2017) 8 SCC 570; Arjun 
Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. [2020] 7 
SCR 180 : (2020) 3 SCC 216; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash 
Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. [2020] 7 SCR 180 : (2020) 7 SCC 1; 
Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police [2023] 5 
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
1043
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
SCR 1016 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 310; Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. 
State (NCT of Delhi) [2022] 7 SCR 792

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.