The Supreme Court on Thursday (03.09.2026) acquitted the (sole surviving) convict in a kidnapping for ransom and murder case, holding that the prosecution's investigation was shoddy and rested on inadmissible confessions and an unsubstantiated “story”, rather than on legally proved evidence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal filed by the accused 1 (A1), whose conviction had been affirmed by the High Court even after it acquitted four of his five co-accused.

It was alleged that the victim went untraceable as he left his home for Hyderabad, following which his father (PW1) received a ransom call. Subsequently, a police complaint was registered and Rs 1,50,000 was deposited to a bank account belonging to the accused. Call records led to accused 6 (A6). Thereafter, A6 was arrested and his confession led to the recovery of the victim's body which was concealed inside a refrigerator. The confession also led to other co-accused (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5). The trial court convicted A1(appellant), A2, A3, A5, and A6 while A4 died during the trial itself. However, the High Court acquitted A2, A3, A5, and A6, while confirming the conviction of the appellant. It is to note that appellant's conviction was made relying on the testimony of PW 3 (a watchman in the apartment from where the body was recovered), and on appellant's failure to explain the presence of the body in a flat he had allegedly taken on lease, which was treated as an incriminating circumstance under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

Aggrieved by the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the narrative of the accused's role emerged only from the confessions of the accused, which are inadmissible to inculpate co-accused. The Court observed that “there was nothing to substantiate the above story but for the confessions, which definitely cannot be relied on to inculpate any of the accused.”

The Court also affirmed the High Court's observation that crucial electronic evidence could not be relied upon. The CCTV footage said to show the accused withdrawing the ransom money was found unreliable both because the accused could not be identified from the footage and because no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) was produced to prove it. Also, the call records relied upon were not proved in evidence as the Nodal Officer of the telecom service provider was never examined and no Section 65B certificate was produced. In such circumstances, the Court held that since the call records were never proved as per the law, the prosecution's story fails.

“The prosecution case was that, it was on analyzing the call records that PW11, the I.O, was led to A6, resulting in his arrest and confession. The call records having not been properly proved through the Nodal Officer of the service provider and no certificate under Section 65B having been produced and proved, the entire story of careful analysis of the call records, falls flat,” the bench observed.

The Court also noted that although A6 allegedly led the police to the apartment where the body was recovered, no independent witness was examined. Since A6 was acquitted, his statement which led to the alleged discovery could not be used to incriminate A1 (appellant).

With respect to the money allegedly withdrawn and recovered from A1 and A6, the Court found that the CCTV footage from the ATM could not be proved for want of Section 65B certificate. Moreover, the Court found that the account-holder of the account in which the deposit was made, was never examined.

All in all, the Court held that there was no evidence to rely upon. “That the deceased died of asphyxia due to smothering, associated with strangulation, is established by the post-mortem report and the dead body was detected, tucked away in a refrigerator inside an apartment. But for these, there is no scrap of evidence, worthy of reliance, to connect A1 to A6 to the murder or even the flat. The IO definitely was led by the confessions and failed to collect any substantive evidence connecting the accused to the crime,” the Court held while setting aside the appellant's conviction and directing his release, unless wanted in any other case.

Case: Kondapaka Sridhar @ Shekar @ Madhu @ Gopi @ Chinna v State of Telangana

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 899

Appearance:

For Appellant: Mr Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR; Mr Mukesh Kumar, Adv; Mr Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Adv

For Respondent: Ms Devina Sehgal, AOR; Mr Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv; Mr Sankalp Varma, Adv

Click here to read the judgment