As per case facts the appellants the son and husband of the co-accused Suraiya were acquitted by the Trial Court of murder but were convicted by the High Court under ... Section IPC for the strangulation murder of Shakeel ur Rehman with whom Suraiya had a property dispute that resulted in a skirmish on the day of the murder The High Court reversed the acquittal based on the inference that the appellants' presence was axiomatic and normal due to their relationship with the co-accused coupled with call detail records CDRs placing the son's phone near the area The appellants appealed the reversal of their acquittal to the Supreme Court The question arose whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants for murder based merely on the inference of their presence as family members and inadmissible CDR evidence that only showed a broad cell tower location without conclusive proof that the deceased actually went to their house or that the appellants participated in the crime particularly when the onus of proof rests on the prosecution Finally the Supreme Court answered that no the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal on the basis of mere surmises and speculative inference as the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' presence at the house during the time of the murder and the CDRs were inadmissible as secondary electronic evidence due to the mandatory lack of a certificate under Section -B of the Evidence Act the initial onus of proving the incriminating circumstances lay solely on the prosecution and this lacuna could not be bridged by drawing an adverse inference against the accused under Section thus the appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside