Subtitle: The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that disputed WhatsApp messages could not sustain a murder conviction when both prosecution witnesses denied the exchange and had not witnessed the alleged assault.
Supreme Court Rules Disputed WhatsApp Chats Cannot Prove Murder
The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of murder after examining disputed WhatsApp messages that allegedly implicated him. The WhatsApp Messages Murder Conviction case raised questions about the reliability of digital evidence in criminal trials. The Court held that such messages cannot independently establish guilt when witnesses deny exchanging them and offer no supporting testimony.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi examined the prosecution’s reliance on a WhatsApp conversation between two witnesses.
The messages allegedly connected the accused to the murder of his friend. They also referred to a fight between the accused and the deceased before the latter’s death.
However, neither witness had seen the alleged assault. Both also denied exchanging messages concerning the accused’s involvement in the crime.
The Supreme Court concluded that the disputed conversation raised suspicion but did not establish criminal liability.
WhatsApp Conversation Between Witnesses Raises Suspicion, Not Proof
The prosecution relied on messages allegedly exchanged between witnesses PW-5 and PW-6.
According to the prosecution, the conversation suggested that the accused had fought with the deceased before his death.
However, neither witness confirmed witnessing the alleged fight. The messages also failed to establish the deceased’s presence at the accused’s house on the relevant night.
The Supreme Court emphasised that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal proceedings.
The Bench observed:
“…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.”
The Court therefore rejected the argument that the conversation alone could establish the accused’s involvement in the murder.
Background: Police Find Deceased in an Open Field
The prosecution case began after authorities discovered the deceased’s body in an open field on February 9, 2019.
A motorcycle lay near the body, tied with a rope.
The post-mortem examination indicated that the death was homicidal. Following this finding, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against unknown persons.
Investigators subsequently examined the circumstances surrounding the death.
During the investigation, the police seized mobile phones belonging to prosecution witnesses PW-5 and PW-6.
Forensic examination revealed a WhatsApp message from PW-5’s phone to PW-6’s phone during the night of February 7–8, 2019.
The message allegedly implicated the appellant in the murder. It also referred to a fight between the accused and the deceased.
The prosecution later relied on this digital exchange as part of its circumstantial evidence.
Police Recover Iron Rod and Blood-Stained Materials
Investigators also recovered several physical items from the accused’s house.
According to the prosecution, the recovery followed the accused’s disclosure statement.
The police recovered an iron rod, a screwdriver, a blood-stained shirt and blood-stained soil.
The prosecution relied on these recoveries alongside the WhatsApp messages to support its case.
Authorities charged the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Sessions Court convicted him of the offences. The High Court subsequently upheld the conviction.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the findings.
Section 6 of Evidence Act Does Not Support Disputed Messages
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 6 of the Evidence Act could support the prosecution’s reliance on the WhatsApp conversation.
Section 6 concerns facts that form part of the same transaction. It provides an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence.
The prosecution sought to establish a connection between the messages and the alleged murder.
However, the Court found a significant gap in the evidence.
The prosecution had not established the time of death through substantive evidence.
Consequently, the Court could not determine whether the messages formed part of the same transaction as the alleged offence.
The Bench observed:
“Here the time of death has not been fixed by any substantive evidence, therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether the message was texted at or about the time of occurrence so as to be part of the same transaction.”
The Court therefore declined to treat the conversation as relevant under Section 6 merely because it allegedly concerned the incident.
Hostile Witnesses Undermine Prosecution’s Digital Evidence
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the prosecution’s reliance on the WhatsApp exchange.
He argued that both PW-5 and PW-6 had turned hostile during the trial.
Neither witness supported the prosecution’s account of the alleged conversation.
Both denied exchanging messages about the accused’s involvement in the murder.
Furthermore, neither witness claimed to have seen the accused fighting with the deceased.
Justice Manoj Misra, who authored the judgment, examined these contradictions.
The Court noted that the prosecution relied heavily on the disputed messages despite the circumstantial nature of its case.
The witnesses’ testimony did not establish the alleged assault or the circumstances described in the conversation.
Their statements therefore weakened the evidentiary value of the WhatsApp exchange.
Supreme Court Examines Section 7 of Evidence Act
The Bench also considered whether Section 7 of the Evidence Act could make the WhatsApp messages relevant.
Section 7 addresses facts that constitute the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.
The Court examined the messages on the assumption that this provision might apply.
However, it found that the witnesses’ denial of the exchange undermined the prosecution’s case.
Even if Section 7 made the messages admissible, their evidentiary value remained limited.
At most, the forensic evidence indicated that a message travelled from PW-5’s phone to PW-6’s phone on the relevant night.
That fact alone did not establish the truth of the message’s contents.
The Court explained that the source of the information required further examination.
The message could have reflected personal knowledge, hearsay or assumptions.
Therefore, the prosecution needed reliable testimony to establish the factual basis of its allegations.
Witnesses Deny Personal Knowledge of Alleged Assault
The Supreme Court placed particular importance on the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6.
Both witnesses stated that they had not witnessed the incident.
PW-5 also denied sending the message that allegedly implicated the accused.
These statements raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s interpretation of the digital evidence.
The Court distinguished between proving that a message existed and proving the truth of its contents.
Forensic evidence could indicate that a communication occurred between two devices.
However, that finding did not automatically establish the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence.
The prosecution had to prove the underlying allegations through legally sufficient evidence.
In the absence of such proof, the WhatsApp conversation could not establish guilt.
Circumstantial Evidence Must Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The WhatsApp Messages Murder Conviction dispute highlighted the limits of relying on disputed electronic communications in criminal trials.
The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established the accused’s connection to the deceased on the relevant night.
The disputed messages did not prove that the deceased visited the accused’s house.
They also failed to establish that the accused assaulted the deceased.
Neither witness provided direct testimony supporting those allegations.
The Court found that the available evidence created suspicion rather than establishing guilt.
It emphasised that suspicion, however serious, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution therefore failed to establish a sufficient basis for sustaining the murder conviction.
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case
The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted the appellant after examining the prosecution’s evidence.
The Bench found that the disputed WhatsApp conversation could not independently support the conviction.
The witnesses denied exchanging the relevant messages and had not witnessed the alleged assault.
The prosecution also failed to establish the necessary connection between the messages and the time of the alleged offence.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the evidence did not establish the accused’s guilt.
The decision reinforces the distinction between suspicion and legally sufficient proof in criminal trials.
It also clarifies the importance of assessing electronic evidence alongside reliable testimony and other supporting material.
The ruling underscores that disputed WhatsApp messages cannot, by themselves, sustain a murder conviction when the prosecution fails to prove the underlying allegations.
