Home · Supreme Court Updates · Criminal Litigation & Investigations
By Binay Kumar, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India; Managing Partner, The Justice Law Partners.
Published: 22 October 2026
Legal Analysis | Criminal Law | Electronic Evidence
Case: Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 INSC 1148
Judgment dated: 13 October 2026
A message is recovered from a mobile phone. A forensic extraction report accompanies it. An electronic-evidence certificate is produced. The message describes an alleged assault.
Is that enough to convict someone of murder?
The question goes to the heart of criminal evidence in an increasingly digital world. A properly extracted electronic message may establish that a communication took place. It does not necessarily establish that the accusation contained in the message is true.
That distinction was central to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 INSC 1148.
The Court set aside a conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence after finding that disputed WhatsApp messages, alleged recoveries and other circumstances failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision is significant not because it rejects WhatsApp evidence, but because it examines the difference between proving a digital communication and proving the occurrence described in it.
On 9 February 2019, Saurabh Panda was found dead in an open field in Chhattisgarh. A motorcycle and a yellow rope were lying nearby.
The death was initially reported as accidental. Following the post-mortem examination, however, the investigation proceeded on the suspicion of homicide.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased had been assaulted at the residence of Kusumlal Sao.
During the investigation, mobile phones belonging to two witnesses were seized. The investigating authorities recovered WhatsApp communications which, according to the prosecution, implicated the accused in the occurrence.
The prosecution also relied upon alleged recoveries of an iron rod, a screwdriver, blood-stained clothing and blood-stained soil.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction.
The Supreme Court was therefore required to examine whether the prosecution had established a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence.
This is perhaps the most instructive feature of the case.
The investigating officer produced the extracted WhatsApp messages as Exhibits P-47 and P-48, an extraction report as Exhibit P-49 and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as Exhibit P-50.
Thus, the prosecution had placed before the court the electronic material along with supporting documentation concerning its extraction and production.
But there was a separate evidentiary difficulty.
The witness from whose phone the messages were said to have originated denied having sent them. He also denied knowledge of the alleged incident.
The recipient acknowledged receiving a message but did not claim to have witnessed the occurrence.
These circumstances raised questions which the electronic extraction and certificate did not, by themselves, answer.
Who authored the communication? Was its author describing something personally witnessed? Was the information based on what another person had said? Or was it merely an assumption?
These questions mattered because the prosecution sought to rely upon the substance of the messages to establish the accused’s involvement in the alleged crime.
The reliability of an electronic record as a record and the reliability of an accusation contained in it are distinct matters of proof.
A certificate concerning electronic evidence cannot, merely by its existence, transform an unverified accusation into proof of guilt.
The Supreme Court examined the prosecution’s reliance upon Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Under Section 6, the Court considered whether the message could be treated as part of the same transaction as the alleged occurrence. The difficulty was that the time of death had not been fixed through substantive evidence. The necessary connection between the message and the occurrence had therefore not been established.
The Court also found Section 8 inapplicable in the circumstances, having regard to the conduct contemplated by that provision.
Even assuming that the communication could be considered under Section 7, it established no more than that a message had travelled from one witness’s mobile phone to another.
It did not establish the personal knowledge of the supposed sender or prove that the alleged assault had taken place.
In paragraph 10.3, the Supreme Court held that the exchange could, at best, create suspicion against the accused. Such suspicion was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
That reasoning should not be misunderstood as a general exclusion of electronic communications from criminal trials. It addresses what these particular messages were capable of proving on the evidence before the Court.
The difficulties did not end with the messages.
No prosecution witness established that the deceased had last been seen alive in the company of the accused on the relevant night.
The witnesses relied upon for that circumstance did not support the prosecution’s case.
The alleged recovery evidence also suffered from important weaknesses.
The witnesses to the seizure proceedings differed on whether blood-stained soil had been recovered from the accused’s premises or from the place where the body was found.
The Court further noted that the bloodstains had not been connected to the deceased through DNA profiling. The iron rod and screwdriver were likewise not forensically linked to the deceased in the manner necessary to support the prosecution’s account.
These were not isolated technical defects. They concerned whether the physical evidence could reliably connect the accused to the alleged offence.
The deceased had been discovered beside a motorcycle.
Although the post-mortem surgeon initially expressed the opinion that the death was homicidal, he accepted during cross-examination that the injuries could also have resulted from a fall from a moving motorcycle.
The Supreme Court considered that evidence together with other circumstances, including evidence concerning the deceased’s substance use.
The Court regarded the accident theory advanced by the defence as probable enough to create doubt about the prosecution’s case.
It did not make a positive finding that an accident had occurred.
That distinction is important. An accused is not required to establish an alternative explanation with the same burden that rests upon the prosecution to prove guilt.
The Court also declined to draw an inference of guilt merely because the accused had not explained injuries found on his own body, when the prosecution had not first established the alleged fight.
The judgment reiterates the established principles governing conviction on circumstantial evidence.
The incriminating circumstances must first be proved. Considered cumulatively, they must point to the guilt of the accused and exclude alternative hypotheses consistent with innocence.
A court cannot fill missing links through conjecture merely because the accusation is grave.
In the present case, the disputed communications, contested recoveries and uncertainty surrounding the cause and circumstances of death did not form the necessary chain.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, acquitted the appellant of the charges and directed his release unless required in another case.
Yes. Electronic communications can be used in judicial proceedings, subject to the rules governing their relevance, admissibility, authenticity and proof.
This judgment does not hold otherwise.
The case was examined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, including Section 65B. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 now addresses electronic records, particularly under Section 63, subject to its applicable provisions and the savings contained in Section 170 for proceedings already pending when the new legislation commenced.
The particular statutory framework must therefore be identified before applying the law to another case.
More fundamentally, four matters should not be confused:
First, existence: Does the electronic record establish that a message or communication existed?
Second, attribution: Is there reliable evidence identifying its author or origin?
Third, knowledge: Did the person making the statement have a reliable basis for the allegation?
Fourth, corroboration: Does the remaining evidence establish the occurrence and connect the accused to it?
The answers depend on the nature of the electronic material, the applicable law and the evidence in the particular proceeding.
Electronic communications are now routinely encountered in criminal investigations, matrimonial disputes, commercial litigation and other proceedings.
Their apparent precision can be persuasive. A message may carry a timestamp, a phone number and a record of transmission. Yet those details cannot automatically establish that the account contained in the message is true.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kusumlal Sao illustrates the importance of examining not merely the digital record, but also the evidentiary foundation of the allegation it contains.
Technology may preserve an accusation. It does not dispense with the obligation to prove it.
Judgment: Read the complete judgment PDF — publicly hosted copy.
Official court record: Supreme Court of India — Judgments Search.
Statutory source: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — India Code.
Editorial note: This analysis is provided for general legal information. It does not constitute legal advice concerning any particular proceeding. Evidentiary questions must be examined under the law applicable to the case and the material actually placed before the court.