Overview The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Pooranmal in a 2010 murder case, emphasizing that electronic data such as Call Detail Records (CDRs) cannot be admitted unless a statutory Section 65‑B certificate is produced. The Court also dismissed forensic evidence due to a broken chain of custody . Key Developments The Court held that oral testimony of telecom officials cannot replace the mandatory Section 65‑B certificate . Reliance on circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient as the evidentiary chain was incomplete. The money recovered (Rs. 46,145) showed inconsistencies, weakening the prosecution’s claim of a recovered Rs. 46,000. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was declared “redundant” due to breach in evidence handling. Important Facts Electronic Evidence Requirement The Court reiterated the precedent set in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Anvar P.V. , confirming that a electronic evidence must be accompanied by a valid Section 65‑B certificate to be admissible. Forensic Evidence Shortcomings The prosecution failed to maintain an unbroken chain of custody for the blood‑stained shirt sent to the FSL . Discrepancies in police logs rendered the lab report ineffective. UPSC Relevance Understanding the evidentiary standards set by the Supreme Court is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Law & Justice). The judgment illustrates: The statutory framework governing electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The importance of procedural safeguards like chain of custody for forensic materials. Application of principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra . Way Forward Law enforcement agencies must ensure: Obtaining a valid Section 65‑B certificate before submitting any electronic logs. Maintaining a documented chain of custody for all physical and forensic evidence. Training investigators on the legal requisites for admissibility of digital and forensic evidence to avoid future convictions being overturned. For UPSC candidates, the case underscores the interplay between technology, law, and procedural rigor—key themes in contemporary governance and criminal justice reforms.