Lack Of CDR From Rural Telephone Exchange In 2003 Not Material : Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Kidnapping Case

The Supreme Court recently observed that non-production of the Call Detail Record (CDR) would not be fatal to the prosecution's case, when the substantive oral evidence remains cogent, credible, and completely unimpeached.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the conviction of two individuals, who were accused of kidnapping for a ransom under Section 346A IPC, in connection with an FIR registered in 2003.

The Appellant-accused contended that the non-production of the CDR  for ransom demand would prove fatal to the prosecution's case. They claimed that a Section 65-B certificate is fatal to the prosecution's claim of a ransom demand. It was argued that no specifics of the phone call were documented.

Rejecting such an argument, the judgment authored by Justice Varale said that when there exists other evidence corroborating the demand of ransom, then mere non-production of CDR, that too during the period of 2003, would not be ground to overturn the conviction.

The Court noted that the testimonies of PW-1 (father of victim), along with PWs 2 and 3 about the fact regarding the ransom demand over the landline phone remained consistent, credible and unimpeached; therefore the same would be sufficient to prove the guilt in absence of a CDR.

“PW-1 clearly deposed in his cross-examination that upon returning home at 7:00 PM after lodging the FIR and conducting a search, his daughters informed him that a ransom call demanding Rs. 5 25 Lakhs had been received at their working home telephone around 11:00 am that very day. This is fully corroborated by the testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3, who were present in the house and testified about the demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs. Most importantly, PW.7 (the Investigating Officer) deposed that PW.1 informed him about this Rs. 5 Lakh ransom call on 07.08.2003, and the I.O. subsequently recorded the statement of Santosh Kaur (the victim's mother) regarding this specific call.”, the court observed.

“The lack of a CDR from a rural telephone exchange in 2003 cannot be permitted to paralyze the criminal justice system when the substantive oral evidence remains cogent, credible, and completely unimpeached. Therefore, the High Court rightly concluded that the demand for ransom was established beyond reasonable doubt.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364A & Section 368 – Kidnapping for Ransom – Ingredients and Proof – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Conviction Upheld -– Threat to Life or Hurt – Firearm Usage - The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 364A IPC contending that no explicit threat to cause death or hurt was administered to the 8-year-old victim - Held that stopping young, defenceless children on their way to school by brandishing a .315 bore country-made pistol inherently constitutes a severe threat to cause death or hurt - The active use of a lethal weapon satisfies the statutory requirement of a threat under Section 364A IPC. [Paras 21-30]

Section 364A IPC – Demand for Ransom – Proof through Oral Testimony - The defence argued that the absence of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and a Section 65-B certificate under the Evidence Act was fatal to establishing a ransom demand – Held that Unlike cases purely dependent on electronic evidence, the present case features consistent, unshaken, and corroborative oral testimonies from multiple witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) coupled with the Investigating Officer's testimony (PW-7) proving a ransom demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs - The lack of a CDR from a rural telephone exchange in 2003 cannot paralyze the criminal justice system when substantive oral evidence remains cogent and unimpeached. [Paras 23-30]

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – Test Identification Parade (TIP) vs. Dock Identification & Section 27 Recoveries - The appellants contended that the absence of a formal TIP vitiated their identification – Held that A TIP is corroborative and not a substantive piece of evidence - The eyewitnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) had a clear daylight opportunity to observe the kidnappers - More crucially, the identity is decisively cemented by infallible recoveries made pursuant to disclosures under Section 27 of the Evidence Act specifically, the recovery of the living child at the behest of one appellant and the recovery of the crime weapon (.315 bore pistol) at the behest of the other. These direct recoveries negate the necessity of a formal TIP. [Paras 26 - 28]

Criminal Trial – Interested / Related Witness - Testimony of the victim's father (PW-1) and sisters (PW-2 and PW-3) cannot be discarded solely on account of relationship - Relationship is not a ground to affect the credibility of a witness if the ocular testimony is otherwise natural, trustworthy, and cogent – Held that the appellants cannot claim the benefit of parity merely because some co-accused were acquitted - An order of acquittal for other co-accused does not lead as a necessary corollary to the acquittal of the convicts if the evidence against the latter stands on a substantially distinct and higher footing (direct eyewitness accounts and precise Section 27 recoveries). [Relied on Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 59; Willian Stephen v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (2024) 5 SCC 258; Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 3 SCC 341; Goverdhan & another v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 3 SCC 378; Paras 21-30]

Cause Title: HARJINDRA SINGH ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad , AOR Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Md. Imran Siddhique, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Tauheed, Adv. Mr. Shah Alam, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Faiz Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR (Argued by) Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Ms. Anusha Rathore, Adv.