In Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 4894 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11542 of 2026), decided on 13 October 2026 (2026 INSC 1148), a Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed a criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (now Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). The judgment, authored by Justice Misra, is a careful application of circumstantial-evidence principles to a modern artefact: a WhatsApp message recovered from witnesses' phones. It is also an instance of the Supreme Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 to upset concurrent findings where the evidentiary foundation is found wanting.
The prosecution case
The deceased was found dead in an open field on 9 February 2019, a motorcycle tied to him with a rope. What was first reported as an accident turned into a murder case after the autopsy suggested homicide, and an FIR was registered against unknown persons. The investigation built a circumstantial case against the appellant on four planks: a WhatsApp message sent on the night of 7–8 February 2019 from the phone of one prosecution witness (PW-5) to another (PW-6), suggesting the appellant's involvement and referring to a quarrel with the deceased; a disclosure statement leading to recovery of an iron rod, a screwdriver, a blood-stained shirt and blood-stained soil; the appellant's unexplained injuries noticed on 11 February 2019; and the theory of a fight between the two men. Most witnesses expected to place the deceased in the appellant's company turned hostile at trial. The Sessions Court convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC; the High Court affirmed.
The message that proved only itself
The Supreme Court's treatment of the WhatsApp message, in paragraph 10.3, repays close reading. Both PW-5 and PW-6 denied having witnessed the incident, and PW-5 denied sending the message. The Court examined the message against three provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872:
Section 6 — same transaction
For the message to be relevant as part of the same transaction, the texting had to be "so connected with the crime that it was part of the same transaction". With the time of death never fixed by substantive evidence, that connection could not be established.
Section 7 — occasion, cause, effect
Even assuming admissibility, the message proved only that a message was sent. Whether the information in it rested on PW-5's personal knowledge, hearsay or assumption "would depend on his deposition in Court" — and in court he disowned it.
Section 8 — conduct
Section 8 covers the conduct of parties to the proceeding or of the victim; it did not extend to messaging between two witnesses who were neither.
The conclusion was crisp: the message "at best, creates a suspicion against the accused-appellant which by itself is not sufficient to sustain conviction." The trial of this case was governed by the Evidence Act, 1872; for offences investigated after 1 July 2024, the corresponding scheme is found in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, but the logic of the holding — that an electronic message proves its transmission, not the truth of its contents — carries over unchanged.
Recoveries without a forensic spine
The recoveries fared no better. One seizure witness deposed that the blood-stained soil came only from the open field where the body lay — not from the appellant's house — and the two seizure witnesses contradicted each other. No serological or DNA link connected the blood on the articles to the deceased; no DNA profiling was done for the soil, the iron rod or the screwdriver. The Court also noted that the doctor did not rule out injuries from a motorcycle fall, and that the deceased's history of substance abuse made the accident theory a real possibility. As for the appellant's own injuries, paragraph 10.8 holds that unexplained injuries on an accused cannot, standing alone, support an inference of guilt absent proof that the two men were seen fighting shortly before the death.
The standard restated
Paragraph 10.1 restates the classical standard for circumstantial cases: the circumstances must be fully established and must point unerringly to guilt, for "the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." Measured against that standard, the Court found in paragraph 11 that "there is hardly any evidence basis which the conviction of the accused could be sustained", set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
| Plank of the prosecution | Why it failed |
|---|---|
| WhatsApp message (PW-5 to PW-6) | Authors disowned it; proved transmission, not truth; Sections 6, 7 and 8 Evidence Act did not carry it further |
| Recoveries on disclosure | Contradictory seizure witnesses; no serology or DNA linking articles to the deceased |
| Unexplained injuries on the accused | No evidence of a fight proximate to the death; injuries alone raise no inference |
| Homicide theory itself | Time of death unfixed; accident not excluded given the medical evidence and substance-abuse history |
For appellate practice, Kusumlal Sao illustrates both halves of Article 136 criminal work: persuading the Supreme Court that concurrent findings rest on suspicion rather than proof, and demonstrating gap by gap — admissibility, authorship, forensics, timeline — that the circumstantial chain is incomplete. For investigators and trial courts, it is a caution that electronic traces must be anchored to a witness who owns their contents, and to forensic links that survive cross-examination.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a WhatsApp message alone prove guilt in a criminal trial?
No. In Kusumlal Sao the Supreme Court held that a message recovered from witnesses' phones, whose contents both witnesses disowned in court, proved only that a message was sent — not who authored the information, whether it rested on personal knowledge or hearsay, or that the accused committed the offence. At best such material raises suspicion, and suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the res gestae exception the Court considered?
Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 makes facts forming part of the same transaction relevant even if not in issue. The Court held the exception could not apply because the time of death was never fixed by substantive evidence, so it could not be shown that the messaging was so connected with the occurrence as to form part of the same transaction.
Why did the recoveries not save the prosecution case?
The blood-stained soil, iron rod, screwdriver and shirt suffered from contradictions between seizure witnesses, and none of the articles was connected to the deceased by serology or DNA profiling. Recovery of articles, without a forensic link to the crime, adds little weight in a circumstantial case.
Does the Supreme Court often reverse concurrent findings of conviction?
Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution with concurrent findings is exceptional, but it is well settled that the Court will step in where the evidence does not form a complete chain pointing only to guilt, or where courts below treated suspicion as proof. Kusumlal Sao is such a case: the Court found there was hardly any evidence on which the conviction could be sustained.