“We may reiterate, therefore, the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.”

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 3 SCC 216 referred and Three-Judge Bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 answered. We are not able to place any reliance on CCTV footage. We must record, witnesses fail to inspire necessary confidence a Court of Law looks for to ‘clinchingly’ establish circumstances of last seen.

Priest-Prasad Sharadchandra Shukla deposes, Chandrabhan came to him on reference of Astrologer-Rajabhau Aher for performing ‘Puja‘ of Kalsarpa Yog and Atigand Yog. He deposes, Chandrabhan came with his horoscope and paid him Rs. 3000/-. In any case, evidence given by Priest-Prasad Sharadchandra Shukla and Astrologer-Rajabhau Aher do not constitute circumstantial evidence having any nexus with the commission of the crime in question.

There is something more than what meets the eye in this case. It will be extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction. Chandrabhan shall be set at liberty.

– Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019].

_____

We have heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rajiv Shakdher for Sovaran. When particularly concerned with cases of Capital Punishment, naturally, since a person’s life hangs in balance, High Court’s responsibility is accordingly enhanced/heightened. Judgments of Trial Court convicting Sovaran and awarding Capital Punishment and confirmation therof by High Court is set aside.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 259-260 of 2019] decided on 04.02.2025.

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh,2025 SCC OnLine SC 351 held, process of investigation and trial must be completed with promptitude.

A ‘reasonable period’ would depend upon factual circumstances of case concerned. There cannot be any empirical formula. If an accused alleges, obviously with proof and reason, there is a large gap between First Information Report and Charge Sheet, it is bound to seek an explanation. Court has noticed, on many unfortunate occasions, there is massive delay. However, for a variety of reasons, there is still a lag in translation of this recognition into reality.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10130 of 2025] decided on 20.11.2025.

Prosecutor is an Officer of Court and holds a solemn duty to act in interest of justice. They cannot act as a Defence Lawyer, but for State, with sole aim of making gauntlet of punishment fall on accused [Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351].

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Justice N.K. Singh, Chandan Pasi v. State of Bihar, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 5137-5138 of 2025] decided 01.12.2025.

_____

Kattavellai has been directed to be sent to gallows on basis of circumstantial evidence which in considered view of Courts below, forms a chain so complete, rules out any and all other possibility of any other person except Kattavellai alone having killed. Kattavellai is directed to be released forthwith.

The worrying feature here is, conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet Kattavellai has been in custody for years. In United States of America, acquittal after a long period of incarceration has led Courts to direct States to award compensation to persons who suffered behind bars only to be eventually held innocent. Well, it is for Legislature to consider this aspect.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Kattavellai v. State of Tamil Nadu, [Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019] decided on 15.07.2025.

_____

We proceed to examine sentence handed down to Jai Prakash, i.e., Death Penalty. The case at hand is based on circumstantial evidence. Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 14 SCC 641 expounded, “Court may choose to give primacy to Life Imprisonment over Death Penalty in cases which are solely based on circumstantial evidence.”

Courts below have failed to make any detailed reference to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. High Court only dealt with brutality. In similar circumstances, Sundar v. Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 310 commuted Death Sentence awarded.

Life Imprisonment without Remission.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 332-332 of 2022] decided on 16.07.2025. 

With Manoj v. State of M.P., (2023) 2 SCC 353 came a watershed moment. Also see, Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 575.

Life Imprisonment till Last Breath.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Byluru Thippaiah v. State of Karnataka, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2490-2491 of 2023] decided on 16.07.2025.

_____

Constitution sets a very high bar before State can take a life. We strongly believe, it is not enough to simply point to horror of an offence. The process leading to a Death Sentence must itself be beyond reproach as it must also be open, thorough and fair. The safeguards laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 are meant to ensure exactly that. Until those safeguards are fully applied, carrying out a Death Sentence would sit contrary to Articles 14 and 21.

– Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 371 of 2023].

_____

The constitutional right afforded to an accused to defend himself is not illusory or imaginary. For trial to be fair and reasonable, an effective opportunity to defend must be provided to accused. In a case where accused is facing charges for offences which carry Capital Punishment, this constitutional mandate becomes even more sacrosanct.

Each case must be adjudicated by Courts rigorously on its individual merits and in strict conformity with law, without yielding to public sentiment and external pressures. Dashwanth shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

– Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2633-3634 of 2024] decided on 08.10.2025.