Disputed WhatsApp Messages Fall Short: India’s Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Supreme Court of India has acquitted Kusumlal Sao of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code after finding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish his guilt. A disputed WhatsApp exchange, contested recoveries and unexplained injuries did not complete the prosecution’s chain of proof. (Paragraphs 10.2–12.)

The reportable judgment, Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 INSC 1148, was delivered on 13 October 2026. Justice Manoj Misra wrote the judgment for the bench comprising himself and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. The Court set aside both the Trial Court and High Court judgments and directed Sao’s immediate release unless wanted in another case. (Paragraph 12.)

Relevant part of the judgment: WhatsApp messages and suspicion

The following is a relevant extract from paragraph 10.3, on printed page 23. This is part of the judgment, not the full judgment:

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.

Read or download the full judgment (PDF). Read paragraph 10.3 together with paragraphs 10–10.8 and the final order in paragraph 12.

What the prosecution alleged

The deceased, Saurabh Panda, was found in an open field on the morning of 9 February 2019, with a motorcycle and a yellow rope nearby. The matter was initially reported as an accidental death. Following the inquest and autopsy, a case was registered against unknown persons. (Paragraph 3.1.)

The prosecution alleged that a fight had occurred at Sao’s house on the night of 7 February. It relied on messages said to have been sent by Sunil Kumar Sahu, PW-5, to Shakrajit Patel, PW-6. It also relied on an alleged disclosure and recoveries of an iron rod, screwdriver, shirt and blood-stained soil. (Paragraphs 3.1–3.3.)

The Trial Court convicted Sao under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on 30 March 2024 in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2019. The High Court dismissed his Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2024. The Supreme Court appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 4894 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11542 of 2026. (Opening particulars and paragraphs 2, 4–6.)

The witnesses did not prove the alleged fight or last-seen circumstance

The Supreme Court found no evidence that the deceased had last been seen alive with the accused. The witnesses called to place him at the accused’s house on the relevant night did not support that version. This undermined a central part of the High Court’s reasoning. (Paragraph 10.2.)

PW-5 denied knowledge of the incident and denied sending the WhatsApp message. PW-6 also said he knew nothing about the incident, although, after being declared hostile, he admitted receiving a message during the prosecution’s cross-examination. The distinction matters: acknowledging receipt did not establish that its contents were true. (Paragraphs 3.6–3.7 and 10.3.)

The Court examined these particular witnesses and the gaps left by their testimony. The judgment should not be read as a general rule that declaring a witness hostile automatically destroys every part of the prosecution case.

Why Sections 6, 7 and 8 did not solve the proof problem

The prosecution sought to rely on Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Paragraph 10.3 addresses each suggested route.

For Section 6, the Court required a connection between the texting and the crime sufficient to make them part of the same transaction. The time of death had not been fixed by substantive evidence. The Court therefore found it difficult to decide whether the message was sent at or about the occurrence.

For Section 8, the Court explained that the relevant conduct was that of the parties, accused or victim. It did not accept the prosecution’s use of that provision to establish the alleged crime through these witnesses’ exchange.

The Court then assumed that the texting was admissible under Section 7. Even on that assumption, it established only that a message had passed from one mobile to the other. Whether its information came from personal observation, hearsay or assumptions depended on evidence about the author’s knowledge. Those questions remained unanswered. (Paragraph 10.3.)

The result was a failure of proof on this record. The Court did not declare that every WhatsApp message is legally inadmissible.

A Section 65-B certificate was present

This case is particularly useful because the electronic material was accompanied by formal extraction records. The investigating officer described recovered messages, screenshots, an extraction report and a certificate under Section 65-B. These were marked as Exhibits P-47 to P-50. The Trial Court relied on them. (Paragraphs 3.17 and 4.1.)

The Supreme Court nevertheless asked whether the alleged fight and assault had actually been established. The unresolved matters included authorship and whether the information was based on personal knowledge. (Paragraph 10.3.)

The practical distinction is between proving an electronic record and proving the truth of the event described in it. The judgment’s analysis shows why lawyers must examine both. It does not decide that a Section 65-B certificate is unnecessary or that certified electronic material must always be rejected.

Disputed recoveries and the missing forensic connection

The prosecution also relied on blood-stained soil allegedly recovered from the accused’s house. The Court identified two difficulties: uncertainty about where the material was recovered, and the failure to connect the blood to the deceased. No DNA profile had been matched with that of the deceased. The Court recorded a similar difficulty concerning the iron rod and screwdriver. (Paragraph 10.4.)

PW-12 said he had witnessed collection of soil from where the body lay, not from another place. He said he had not accompanied police to the accused’s house. According to him, police brought the rod and said they had obtained it from that house; no clothes were recovered in his presence. His account of the screwdriver also did not establish that he had witnessed its recovery at the alleged location. (Paragraph 10.5.)

PW-13, however, spoke of soil being seized from the accused’s house. The Supreme Court treated this conflict between seizure witnesses as a weakness in the prosecution case. (Paragraph 10.5.)

This reasoning does not create an automatic rule that every recovery without a DNA match is worthless. The disputed seizure evidence, absent forensic link and other missing circumstances were assessed together in this case.

The medical evidence left an alternative explanation open

The autopsy surgeon described the death as homicidal. During cross-examination, however, he accepted that the injuries could also result from falling from a moving motorcycle. The body had been found in an open field with a motorcycle beside it. (Paragraphs 3.20–3.21 and 10.6.)

The Court also referred to the evidence concerning the deceased’s substance use when assessing the defence theory of an accident. It found that theory probable enough to create doubt about the prosecution case. This was an assessment of the evidence before it, rather than a finding that substance use alone established an accident. (Paragraph 10.7.)

The acquittal rested on the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt. The Court did not need to establish the precise sequence of an accident before giving the accused the benefit of the doubt arising from the record.

Unexplained injuries could not fill the missing links

The accused was medically examined on 11 February 2019 and injuries were recorded. The State argued that his failure to explain them supported an adverse inference. (Paragraphs 4.4 and 9.3.)

The relevant opening sentence of paragraph 10.8 states:

The absence of explanation of his injuries by the accused found during medical examination conducted on 11.02.2019, in no circumstance could lead to an inference that he is guilty.

The paragraph immediately explains the factual limit of that observation. The injuries might have had value if the prosecution had established that the accused and deceased were seen fighting shortly before the body was found. No prosecution witness proved that fight. The disputed WhatsApp message was the only evidence relied on for it. (Paragraph 10.8.)

Read the complete reasoning and final order in the full judgment.

The standard for circumstantial evidence

In paragraph 10, the Court restated the settled requirements for a conviction based on circumstances. Each material circumstance must be established, and the circumstances together must form a complete chain pointing to guilt and excluding other possible hypotheses.

The Court referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. Paragraph 10.1 also referred to Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, emphasising the distance between an accused who may be guilty and one whose guilt must be established.

Here, the alleged last-seen circumstance was not proved, the messages did not establish the assault, the recoveries were disputed and an alternative explanation remained open. The Court assessed the combined effect of those weaknesses. (Paragraphs 10.2–10.8.)

Final order and practical effect

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Sao of all charges for which he had been tried. Both lower-court judgments were set aside. Release was ordered forthwith unless he was wanted in another case. This was an acquittal, rather than a remand for a fresh trial. (Paragraphs 11–13.)

For criminal practitioners, the judgment highlights three questions when relying on messages: who authored them, what the author personally knew, and whether independent evidence proves the events described. A technically recovered message cannot answer every question about the underlying allegation.

The ruling is an Indian Supreme Court decision applying Indian law. Pakistani readers may find its evidentiary reasoning useful for comparative research; any argument before a Pakistani court must be grounded in the applicable Pakistani law and authorities.

For related reading, see our analysis of electronic evidence in the Qaiser and Amoon Ayub case and the Judgments library.

Source and full judgment

Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh — full judgment, 2026 INSC 1148, Supreme Court of India, 13 October 2026, Criminal Appeal No. 4894 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11542 of 2026. Relevant reasoning: paragraphs 10–10.8. Acquittal and release: paragraph 12.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Supreme Court decide in Kusumlal Sao’s case?

It allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court and High Court judgments, and acquitted Kusumlal Sao of all charges for which he had been tried. It ordered his immediate release unless wanted in another case. (Paragraph 12.)

Why were the WhatsApp messages insufficient?

Their authorship and the sender’s personal knowledge remained unresolved. Both witnesses denied witnessing the incident, and the alleged sender denied sending the message. The messages created suspicion but did not prove the alleged assault. (Paragraph 10.3.)

Did the Court declare all WhatsApp evidence inadmissible?

No. It examined the particular messages, the witnesses’ testimony and Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The decision does not impose a general ban on WhatsApp evidence.

Was a Section 65-B certificate produced?

Yes. Paragraphs 3.17 and 4.1 record the extraction report, screenshots and certificate. The unresolved issue was whether the alleged events were proved, including who authored the messages and the basis of that person’s knowledge.

Did the judgment require DNA testing in every murder case?

No. The absence of a forensic link mattered alongside disputed recoveries and other weaknesses in this circumstantial case. Paragraphs 10.4–10.5 should be read on those facts.

Could unexplained injuries prove the accused guilty here?

No. Paragraph 10.8 explains that the injuries might have mattered if the prosecution had first established a fight between the accused and deceased shortly before the body was found. No witness proved that fight.

What is the correct case reference?

Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 INSC 1148, Criminal Appeal No. 4894 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11542 of 2026, decided on 13 October 2026 by Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi.