Call Detail Records Not Admissible Without S.65 Evidence Act Certificate : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted in a murder case, holding that Call Detail Records (CDRs) cannot be relied upon in evidence unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. “…the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] was not proved by the prosecution. In the absence of the certificate, mandatorily required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA], the call detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to support the prosecution's case.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, while setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's judgment which had upheld the conviction. The case arose from the 2010 murder of a woman. The prosecution alleged that the victim's husband had conspired with the appellant to commit the crime. To establish the alleged conspiracy, the prosecution relied on Call Detail Records showing frequent contact between the two accused around the time of the incident. However, the appellant challenged the admissibility of these electronic records, arguing that the prosecution had failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, which is required to authenticate electronic evidence. Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that production of a certificate is mandatory for making electronic evidence admissible in evidence. “…this Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, reaffirmed and clarified the position laid down in Anvar P.V. (supra), observing that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act [Section 63 of the BSA] for admissibility of electronic evidence is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with.”, the court said. Rejecting the State's argument that the requirement was satisfied because telecom companies' nodal officers were examined as witnesses, the Court clarified that oral testimony cannot substitute the statutory certificate.“Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.”, the court said in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra).The Court noted that the case against appellant Pooranmal rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, namely: call detail records showing contact between the accused persons, recovery of a blood-stained shirt allegedly matching the deceased's blood group, and recovery of Rs. 46,000 said to have been paid to him for committing the murder.Doubts Over Recovery Of MoneyThe Court also found serious inconsistencies regarding the alleged recovery of Rs. 46,000 from the appellant's house.While the prosecution claimed that Rs. 46,000 had been recovered pursuant to the accused's disclosure statement, the money counted in court amounted to Rs. 46,145, creating doubt about the very factum of recovery.The Court held that even otherwise, mere recovery of currency notes without evidence connecting them to the crime cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance.FSL Report Rendered UnreliableThe Court further rejected reliance on the blood-stained shirt allegedly recovered from the accused.It observed that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized articles before they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.Discrepancies in the testimony of police witnesses and entries in the malkhana register showed that the samples had been sent out and returned before being forwarded again, with no explanation for the return.Due to the breach in the chain of custody, the Court held that the FSL report became “redundant and a worthless piece of paper.”Reiterating the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused.Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court, and acquitted Appellant of all charges, and directed his immediate release from custody, if not required in any other case.HeadnoteCriminal Law: Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Articles – Call Detail Records (CDR) – Section 65-B of Evidence Act – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 201 [Sections 103(1)/3(5) and 238 of BNS, 2023] – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Requirements for conviction – Held that the "Panchsheel" principles governing circumstantial evidence - To sustain a conviction, the circumstances must be fully established and form a complete chain that excludes every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused - The mental distance between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. [Relied on harad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra...

Call Detail Records Not Admissible Without S.65 Evidence Act Certificate : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Oral evidence of officials of the telecom company cannot substitute Section 65B certificate.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Call Detail Records Not Admissible Without S.65 Evidence Act Certificate : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Oral evidence of officials of the telecom company cannot substitute Section 65B certificate.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers