In Pooranmal vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(2026), Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria delivered a 31-page long judgement dated March 10, 2026, it observed:"33. Thus, the very factum of recovery of the currency notes comes under a grave cloud of doubt. That apart, mere recovery of currency notes, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing a clear nexus between the said amount and the crime, would not by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against the appellant-Pooranmal. Thus, the said circumstance was wrongly treated to be incriminating by the trial Court as the recovery itself is doubtful and additionally, the mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence."
It held that that the prosecution had failed to establish a
complete chain of incriminating circumstances connecting the appellant
to the alleged offence. The Court held that the evidence relied upon by
the prosecution was either doubtful, inadmissible, or insufficient to
sustain the conviction. The Court set aside the judgments
of the trial court and the High Court and acquitted the appellant of all
charges. The Court directed that the appellant, who was in custody, be
released forthwith.
The Court delivered the judgement upon hearing a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC in connection with a murder case, where the prosecution had relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including recoveries and call detail records.
The Court noted that the prosecution has failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the seized articles sent for forensic examination. Discrepancies between the testimony of police witnesses and entries in the Malkhana register created serious doubts regarding the safekeeping and movement of the sealed articles before their dispatch to the forensic laboratory. In this context, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the integrity of the chain of custody necessary for relying on the forensic report. Without such proof, the forensic report itself lost evidentiary value. The Bench also addressed the reliance placed by the prosecution on call detail records purportedly showing frequent communication between the accused persons. The Court held that electronic evidence in the form of call detail records can be admitted only upon compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The prosecution could not produce the statutory certificate required under the provision.
As a consequence, the call detail records were held to be inadmissible in evidence. The three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, recovery of currency notes, recovery of the shirt, and call detail records were not proved in accordance with the law. These circumstances failed to form a complete and unbroken chain of evidence capable of establishing the guilt of the appellant.
Relevance for Yashwant Varma case
All India Radio reported on May 19, 2026 that the Judges Inquiry Committee investigating allegations concerning Justice Yashwant Varma submitted its report to the Speaker Om Birla, Lok Sabha at the Parliament House. It was presented in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The committee was constituted on August 12 last year by the Lok Sabha Speaker to inquire into allegations against former High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. The report will be laid before both Houses of Parliament in due course. The Presiding Officer of the Judges Inquiry Committee, Supreme Court's Justice Aravind Kumar, along with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court Justice Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate of the Karnataka High Court B.V. Acharya, presented the Report of the Judges Inquiry Committee to the Speaker, Lok Sabha. Notably, Justice Chandrashekhar's name was recommended for his elevation as judge of the Supreme Court on May 27, 2026 by the Collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, B.V. Nagarathna and M.M. Sundresh. He is expected to serve approximately three years and eleven months on the Supreme Court bench, retiring in May 2030.
The Speaker and the MPs ought pay attention to the judgement in Pooranmal vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(2026), dated March 10, 2026 because mere recovery of currency notes....cannot by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against an accused. The probe was initiated following the discovery of massive amounts of burnt currency notes at his official residence in his absence during a firefighting operation. The currency notes initially estimated to be up to Rs. 15 crore, was discovered in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s residence after a fire broke out on March 14, 2025. Who counted the cash? It was either Rs 15 crore or it was not. How can a specific figure be deemed an estimated figure? If An initial Supreme Court in-house committee concluded in May 2025 that Justice Varma had "active control" over the room as if his absence from the residence was inconsequential. In May 2025, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had sent the report to the President and Prime Minister, recommending the initiation of removal proceedings, with ascertaining the chain of the custody of the currency notes, especially the source of the cash in question. Subsequently, on July 21, 2025, 14th Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar informed Rajya Sabha that he received a notice for the removal of High Court Judge Yashwant Varma and asked the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha to take necessary steps. The notice was signed by more than 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. He observed: “Thus, it meets the numerical requirement of signing by members of Parliament for setting in motion the process of removal of a high court judge". There is no clarity as to what happened to the said notice after the abrupt resignation of Dhankar on on July 21, 2025. As a senior advocate he must have known that mere recovery of currency notes cannot by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against an accused. Later, the Speaker, Lok Sabha had constituted a three-member statutory committee to formally investigate the charges under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Has the committee looked in to the question of the likely beneficiaries who gain from killing the reputation of judges? There's more to this than meets the eye. It is a scientifically established fact that appearances are deceptive.
No comments:
Post a Comment