Supreme Court Acquits Kidnapping-Murder Accused After Finding No Substantive Evidence Beyond Confessions
A Division Bench set aside A1's conviction, holding that shoddy investigation relying on confessions, uncertified electronic records and an unreliable watchman left no case to answer.
The Supreme Court on 3 September 2026 set aside the conviction of Kondapaka Sridhar, the sole accused whose guilt had been affirmed by the Telangana High Court in a kidnapping and murder case. A Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found that the prosecution had built its entire case on confessions, call records and CCTV footage that were never properly proved in evidence, and on the testimony of a watchman whose own status and presence at the apartment could not be established. The Court directed A1's immediate release if he had not already been freed on the bail bonds ordered during the proceedings.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
The prosecution's story began when a man left home for Hyderabad and could not be reached by telephone even the following day. Two days after his disappearance, his father — PW1 — received a ransom call with instructions to deposit Rs 2,00,000 in a bank account. PW1 lodged a complaint (Exhibit P1) and deposited Rs 1,50,000 in an account held in the name of one Geetanjali.
Police analysed calls between two phone numbers and traced them to A6, who was arrested. A6 allegedly pointed out a flat in ARK Residency, Uppal, inside which the missing man's body was found tucked in a refrigerator. The post-mortem report established death by asphyxia due to smothering associated with strangulation. A6 also confessed to the involvement of A1 through A5.
Six persons were arrayed as accused. A4 died during trial. The Trial Court convicted A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6. The Telangana High Court acquitted A2, A3, A5 and A6 but affirmed A1's conviction on two grounds: the testimony of PW3, who claimed to have seen A1 bring the deceased to Flat No. 402, and the inference drawn under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that A1 had not explained the presence of the body inside an apartment he had allegedly leased. A1 challenged that affirmation before the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4512 of 2025.
Why the Prosecution's Pillars Fell
The Court found, at the outset, that there was nothing to substantiate the prosecution's narrative except confessions, which it said “definitely cannot be relied on to inculpate any of the accused.” Each of the remaining pieces of evidence was then examined and found wanting.
Call records and CCTV footage: The Investigating Officer's entire lead to A6 rested on the analysis of call detail records between two phone numbers. The Court noted that the cellphone records produced by the IO were not looked into by the High Court because the Nodal Officer of the service provider was never examined and, critically, no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was produced. The same defect applied to the CCTV footage from the ATM counter that was said to show the accused withdrawing the ransom money. The High Court had also found that the footage lacked the clarity needed to identify any accused. The Supreme Court agreed: the absence of a Section 65B certificate meant the entire narrative of careful call analysis “falls flat.”
The Geetanjali account: The ransom amount was deposited into an account held by one Geetanjali. No investigation was conducted in relation to that account. The account-holder was never brought before the court. Account statements showing ATM withdrawals were not produced and proved through a bank official. This left the money trail entirely unconnected to the crime.
A6's discovery statement: A6 was said to have led police to the apartment where the body was hidden. However, no independent witness was examined either for A6's statement about the concealment or for the actual discovery of the body. In any event, A6 had been acquitted by the High Court; his statement leading to the discovery, even if proved, could not incriminate A1.
PW3's Testimony and the Collapse of the Last-Seen Theory
PW3 was described as a watchman of ARK Residency. He testified that A1 had taken Flat No. 402 on lease on 17 June 2011, moved in with his wife A3, her brother A5 and A4, and that two days before A3 and A5 left the apartment he saw A1 bring the deceased to the flat. This testimony was the backbone of both the last-seen theory and the Section 106 inference.
The Court identified several failures. In his chief examination, PW3 did not identify who owned the flat or state that he handed the keys to A1 on the owner's instructions. No lease agreement was produced. The prosecution did not examine any resident of the apartment complex to corroborate A1's presence there. No visitors' register was produced. PW3 could not give details of any occupants beyond noting that the building had five floors and seventeen flats.
PW4 was offered as the owner of Flat No. 402. He testified that he had entrusted PW3 to let out the flat, but produced no ownership documents. In cross-examination he confirmed that police had not asked for any such documents. PW3 did not specifically corroborate PW4's claim in his examination-in-chief, though he mentioned the owner's name and identity in cross-examination.
On the Test Identification Parade, the High Court had already found that PW3 admitted photographs of the suspects were shown to him before he was taken to the jail for identification. The TIP of A1, A3 and A5 was therefore not trusted. The Supreme Court accepted that finding.
The combined effect was that neither PW3's employment as watchman nor A1's tenancy of the flat was proved by any document or independent corroboration. Without proof of the lease, the Section 106 inference — that A1 had to explain why a dead body was found in his apartment — could not be drawn. The last-seen theory, which depended on the same unsubstantiated tenancy, fell with it.
The Court's Assessment of the Investigation
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing the judgment, was direct about the quality of the investigation. The IO was led entirely by the confessions and failed to collect any substantive evidence connecting the accused to the crime. The money recovered from A1 and A6 was never traced to the kidnapping or ransom demand. Electronic evidence was gathered but never made admissible. No independent witnesses were examined for the most critical moments: the discovery of the body, the alleged tenancy, the financial trail.
The Court also noted that the Geetanjali account, into which the ransom was deposited, was a loose thread the prosecution simply left hanging. No investigation followed the money into that account and no one connected to it was examined.
The result, the Court held, was that beyond the fact of a dead body found in a refrigerator and the post-mortem establishing the cause of death, there was no piece of evidence worthy of reliance to connect A1 to the murder or even to the flat where the body was found.
Order
The Court found absolutely no reason to sustain A1's conviction and set it aside. The appeal was allowed. The Court had already directed A1's release during proceedings; if he had been released, the bail bonds stood cancelled. If A1 remained in custody, he was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. All pending applications were disposed of.