WhatsApp Messages Do Not Prove Murder When Authorship and Source of Knowledge Remain Unproved: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Finds Circumstantial Chain Incomplete
Case Name: Kusumlal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh
Date of Judgment: 13 October 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 1148
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
Held: The Supreme Court held that WhatsApp messages implicating an accused cannot establish the narrated occurrence merely because their transmission between mobile phones is proved. Where the alleged sender denies sending the messages and neither the sender nor the recipient claims to have witnessed the incident, unanswered questions concerning authorship and personal knowledge prevent the messages from proving the accused’s involvement. On the evidence in this case, they created suspicion but did not establish guilt.
The Court further held that disputed recoveries of blood-stained articles, without connecting the blood to the deceased, did not complete the circumstantial chain. The accused’s failure to explain injuries discovered during a subsequent medical examination could not establish guilt when the prosecution had not proved the alleged fight. A conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence requires fully established circumstances forming a complete chain that excludes reasonable alternative hypotheses.
Summary: The Supreme Court acquitted Kusumlal Sao of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, reversing concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court. The prosecution had relied principally on recovered WhatsApp messages, alleged weapon recoveries, blood-stained articles and unexplained injuries on the accused.
Saurabh Panda was found dead in an open field on the morning of 9 February 2019, with a motorcycle and a yellow rope nearby. The incident was initially reported as an accidental death. Following the autopsy, police registered an FIR against unknown persons and subsequently implicated Sao.
The prosecution alleged that Sao and the deceased had fought at Sao’s house on the night of 7 February 2019. It relied on messages extracted from mobile phones purportedly sent by prosecution witness Sunil Kumar Sahu to Shakrajit Patel. The messages suggested that the deceased had been assaulted and his body removed. Police also claimed to have recovered an iron rod, a screwdriver, blood-stained soil and a shirt.
At trial, however, the witnesses relied upon to establish the deceased’s presence at the accused’s house did not support the prosecution. The alleged sender denied sending the WhatsApp messages, and both he and the recipient disclaimed having witnessed the incident. Nevertheless, the Trial Court treated the extracted messages and accompanying electronic-record certificate as supporting the alleged fight and killing. The High Court affirmed the conviction.
The Supreme Court found no evidence establishing that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused. Addressing the messages under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it held that their connection with the same transaction could not be established under Section 6 because the time of death had not been fixed by substantive evidence. Section 8 did not apply to the witnesses’ texting as the relevant conduct contemplated by that provision. Even assuming relevance under Section 7, proof that a message travelled between the phones did not establish whether its contents rested on personal knowledge, hearsay or speculation.
The recovery evidence also suffered from material contradictions. One seizure witness stated that soil was collected only from the field where the body lay, denied accompanying police to the accused’s house and did not witness recovery of the clothes. Another witness supported collection of soil from the house. The blood stains were not connected to the deceased, and no matching DNA profile was available.
The Court also noted that the autopsy surgeon, despite describing the death as homicidal, had accepted that the injuries could result from a fall from a moving motorcycle. Considering the surrounding circumstances, it found the defence theory of an accident probable enough to create doubt.
The accused’s unexplained injuries did not bridge these evidentiary gaps. That circumstance could have assumed significance had the prosecution first established a fight between him and the deceased.
Decision: The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court, overturned Sao’s convictions under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and acquitted him of all charges for which he had been tried.