'WhatsApp Messages Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction': SC Acquits Man In Murder Case

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man convicted of murder, holding that WhatsApp messages allegedly implicating him in the crime could not be relied upon to sustain his conviction as the prosecution failed to establish when the messages were sent in relation to the incident and whether they formed part of the same transaction.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi noted that both witnesses who allegedly exchanged the messages had denied witnessing the incident, while one of them had also denied sending the message.

Court acquitted Kusumlal Sao in the murder case, holding that the WhatsApp exchange, at best, created a suspicion against him and could not by itself sustain his conviction.

WhatsApp messages as evidence

The Bench said the prosecution failed to establish when the WhatsApp message was sent in relation to the death, while the witnesses who allegedly exchanged the messages denied witnessing the incident.

Court was hearing Sao's appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment upholding the trial court's March 30, 2024 judgment convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 103 and Section 238 of the BNS].

The case arose from the discovery of the body of Saurabh Panda lying in an open field on February 9, 2019, with a motorcycle and a yellow rope beside it. Following an inquest and autopsy, the death was suspected to be homicidal and an FIR was registered against unknown persons.

During the investigation, the complicity of Sao came to light. Mobile phones belonging to Shakrajit Patel (PW-6) and Sunil Kumar Sahu (PW-5) were seized. Forensic analysis showed that a WhatsApp message had been sent from PW-5's mobile to PW-6's mobile during the intervening night of February 7 and 8, 2019, allegedly implicating Sao in the murder.

Before the Supreme Court, Sao's counsel argued that no prosecution witness had testified that the deceased was in the company of the accused on the night of the incident. He also pointed out that both PW-5 and PW-6 had denied witnessing any incident.

The counsel further argued that the possibility of the deceased having suffered the injuries in a road accident could not be ruled out, as the motorcycle was found next to his body and the doctor had not ruled out such a possibility. He also submitted that the prosecution witnesses had spoken of good relations between the accused and the deceased and had not disclosed any motive for the murder.

The State defended the conviction.

Circumstantial evidence

The Bench reiterated that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be fully established and the circumstances, taken cumulatively, must form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.

"In the present case, what assumes importance is that there is no evidence on record of the deceased being last seen alive in the company of the accused," the Bench said.

It noted that all prosecution witnesses who had been cited to establish that the deceased was seen at the accused's house on the night of the incident had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case.

On the WhatsApp messages, the Bench examined their possible relevance under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act.

For Section 6 to apply, it said, the fact of texting the message had to be so connected with the crime that it formed part of the same transaction. However, the prosecution had not fixed the time of death through substantive evidence.

"It is difficult to ascertain whether the message was texted at or about the time of occurrence so as to be part of the same transaction," the Bench said.

Court also rejected reliance on Section 8, observing that the provision concerns the conduct of the parties to the suit or proceeding, or of the accused or the victim.

Even assuming that the act of texting was admissible under Section 7, the Bench said, it would establish only that a message had been sent from PW-5's mobile to PW-6's mobile.

Whether the information in the message was based on PW-5's personal knowledge, hearsay or an assumption would depend on his testimony. However, PW-5 and PW-6 had both stated that they had not witnessed the incident. PW-5 had also denied sending the message.

"In such circumstances, the bench opined who was the author of that message; whether that message was sent on the basis of personal knowledge of the person who sent the message or it was based on hearsay information received by its author, are all questions of which there is no answer," the Bench said.

The Bench concluded that the WhatsApp exchange did not establish that the deceased was present at the accused's house on the night of the incident or that Sao had assaulted him.

"Thus, the exchange of message between PW-5 and PW-6 does not prove that on the fateful night the deceased was present in the house of the accused and that the accused had assaulted the deceased, it, at best, creates a suspicion against the accused-appellant which by itself is not sufficient to sustain conviction," it said.

Court also rejected the prosecution's reliance on injuries found on Sao during his medical examination on February 11, 2019. It said the absence of an explanation from the accused for those injuries could not, by itself, lead to an inference of guilt.

The circumstance could have assumed significance if the prosecution had first established that Sao and the deceased were seen fighting shortly before the deceased was found. However, none of the prosecution witnesses had testified that the two were fighting on the night in question.

"In conclusion, we are of the view that there is hardly any evidence basis which the conviction of the accused could be sustained," the Bench said.

Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside Sao's conviction and acquitted him of all charges. It directed that he be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Case Title: Kusumlal Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi

Date of Judgment: October 13, 2026