Recently, the Supreme Court held that Call Detail Records (CDRs) cannot be relied upon in criminal trials unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, setting aside the conviction of an accused in a murder case. The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested on inadmissible electronic evidence and unreliable recoveries. Emphasising the mandatory nature of statutory safeguards governing electronic records, the Court observed that “in the absence of the certificate… the call detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to support the prosecution’s case.”
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a murder investigation in which the prosecution alleged that the accused had conspired with another person to commit the offence. During the investigation, the police relied on disclosure statements leading to the recovery of a blood-stained shirt and Rs 46,000 allegedly paid as consideration for the crime, along with Call Detail Records indicating frequent communication between the accused persons around the time of the incident. Based on this circumstantial evidence, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court in appeal. Challenging the concurrent findings of guilt and the reliance placed on electronic and recovery evidence, the accused approached the Apex Court through a criminal appeal arising out of a Special Leave Petition, seeking reversal of his conviction.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the conviction was entirely based on weak circumstantial evidence and conjectures. The Counsel contended that the prosecution relied heavily on call detail records, which were inadmissible because the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act had not been produced. The defence further challenged the alleged recoveries, asserting that the recovery of currency notes lacked proof of nexus with the crime and that the alleged blood-stained shirt was unreliable evidence. According to the Appellant, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking him to the alleged murder.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Opposing the appeal, the Respondent argued that both the trial court and the High Court had correctly relied upon incriminating circumstances, including recovery of a blood-stained shirt, recovery of Rs 46,000 allegedly paid as consideration for the crime, and call records indicating frequent communication between the accused persons near the time of the incident. The Counsel also submitted that the call detail records had been proved through the nodal officers of the telecom companies, and therefore, the absence of a formal certificate under Section 65-B should not be treated as fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Observation of the Court:
The Court reiterated the well-established principles governing such cases laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, emphasising that a conviction can be sustained only when the circumstances form a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
The Court noted a serious discrepancy in the amount recovered, observing that while the seizure memo mentioned Rs 46,000, the amount counted in court was Rs 46,145, thereby casting doubt on the credibility of the recovery itself. The Court further held that mere recovery of currency notes, without any evidence connecting the money to the crime, cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance.
The Court found that the prosecution had 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 officials and entries in the malkhana register suggested that the seized articles had been sent out and returned before being forwarded again, with no explanation provided for the irregularity. Consequently, the Court held that the FSL report became “redundant and a worthless piece of paper.”
The Bench reiterated while referring to cases Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, that production of a certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory condition for admissibility of electronic evidence. Rejecting the State’s contention that examination of telecom officials could substitute the statutory requirement, the Court held that “oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.”
Since the prosecution failed to produce the required certificate, the Court concluded that the call detail records were inadmissible and could not be relied upon to support the prosecution’s case.
At last, in view of the serious defects in the prosecution evidence, including the inadmissibility of call detail records for want of a Section 65-B certificate, unreliable recovery of currency notes, and a broken chain of custody affecting the FSL report, the Apex Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving the appellant’s guilt.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing his immediate release from custody.
Case Title: Pooranmal Vs. The State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case No.: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1977/2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv. Yuvraj Kashyap,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Kartikeya Asthana, AOR Nidhi Jaswal,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :