Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused, Holds WhatsApp Messages Alone Insufficient

The Supreme Court has acquitted Kusumlal Sao in a murder case after holding that WhatsApp messages allegedly exchanged around the incident could not by themselves sustain a conviction built on circumstantial evidence. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court. The prosecution, the Court said, had not proved when the messages were sent or how they connected to the killing. The order ends the criminal liability imposed on the appellant in this case.

On March 30, 2024, the trial court had convicted Sao under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Those provisions correspond to Section 103 and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The trial court held him guilty of murder and of causing disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening himself from punishment. The Chhattisgarh High Court later upheld that conviction. He then appealed to the Supreme Court against the concurrent verdicts.

There was no direct eyewitness to the assault. The prosecution instead relied on events said to have taken place before and after the death, along with WhatsApp messages exchanged between two persons. The content of those messages, it claimed, pointed to the involvement of the accused and supported the chain of events leading to the charge of murder.

Re-examining the record, the Bench said the WhatsApp exchange could not carry the weight the prosecution placed on it. The prosecution had not fixed the time at which the messages were sent in relation to the incident. It had also not shown that the messages were part of the same transaction as the killing. Without that link of time and transaction, the messages remained detached pieces of information.

The two alleged parties to the exchange were examined as witnesses. Neither supported the prosecution on the central point. Both denied having seen the incident. One also denied having sent the message attributed to him. Their evidence therefore did not confirm authorship, timing, or the meaning the prosecution sought to draw from the chats.

At best, the Court said, the messages gave rise to suspicion. Suspicion, however strong, is not proof in a criminal trial. A conviction for murder requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where the case depends on circumstances, each circumstance must be proved by cogent material and the proved circumstances must point only to the guilt of the accused.

Messages failed test of circumstantial evidence

The judgment applies the settled test for cases based on circumstantial material. The prosecution must prove each circumstance it relies upon. The proved circumstances must form a complete chain. That chain must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. If a link is missing, or if another explanation remains open, the accused gets the benefit of doubt.

Here the missing links were basic. The record did not show when the WhatsApp messages came into existence. It did not show whether they were written before the death, at the time of the death, or after it. It did not show whether the writers had personal knowledge or were repeating hearsay, assumption or rumour. The prosecution led no technical or corroborative material to fix authorship, device, timing or context. The witnesses did not fill those gaps.

Indian courts treat electronic messages in criminal trials with caution, the ruling reflects. A printout or screenshot shown in court does not prove itself. The prosecution must prove who sent the message, who received it, from which device or number, and at what time. It must prove the message through the witness concerned or through other admissible material. Where the sender denies the message, the court needs independent material to decide authorship and reliability.

The Bench did not bar the use of WhatsApp material as such. Such messages can be relevant where they are duly proved and fit into a proved chain. The point in this case was narrower. Unproved messages, denied by the witnesses and delinked from the time of the offence, cannot become the foundation for guilt. The Court refused to convert suspicion drawn from chats into a finding that the appellant had committed murder.

The case also involved the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, now Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. That charge relates to causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender. The trial court had convicted the appellant on that count along with the murder charge. Once the main chain on murder failed, the allied finding could not survive on the same weak material. The Court set aside both convictions.

For readers asking what is IPC section 302 in this context, it was the provision under which the charge of murder was framed and the conviction was recorded by the trial court. The conviction under section 302 IPC punished the act of causing death with the intention and knowledge required for murder. The sentence imposed under that provision, along with the sentence for disappearance of evidence, has now been set aside by the acquittal.

The reference to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita reflects the change in the statute books. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code now corresponds to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 201 now corresponds to Section 238. The change of numbers does not alter the facts. The trial and the High Court decision were under the Indian Penal Code, and the Supreme Court tested those findings on the evidence as it stood.