RAVINDER vs STATE OF PUNJAB CRLA 1307/19 04/05/22

[ Uday Umesh Lalit JJ ]

Sections 302 and 364 IPC Kidnapping and Murder of two children Circumstantial evidence When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence and the chain of circumstances must be conclusive enough to sustain a conviction Last seen theory, the arrest of the accused, the recovery of material objects and the call details produced, do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence and do not establish the fact accused committed the murder of the children There is admittedly no direct evidence to establish such alleged intimacy and that the entire conviction is based on mere circumstantial evidence Prosecution has also failed to establish by evidence the supposed objective of these murders and what was it that was sought to be achieved by such an act Conviction and sentence set aside Appeal allowed

:Lastly, this appeal also raised an important substantive question of law that whether the call records produced by the prosecution would be admissible under section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, given the fact that the requirement of certification of electronic evidence has not been complied with as contemplated under the Act. The uncertainty of whether Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer & Ors [ (2014) 10 SCC 473] occupies the filed in this area of law or whether Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801 lays down the correct law in this regard has now been conclusively settled by this court by a judgement dated 14/07/2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [ (2020) 7 SCC 1] wherein the court has held that: “We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose. . . Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us hereinabove, is the law declared by this Court on Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno (supra), being per incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi Mohammad (supra) and the judgment dated 03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay down the law correctly and are therefore overruled. . The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the “computer” happens to be a part of a “computer system” or “computer network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).” 21. In light of the above, the electronic evidence produced before the High Court should have been in accordance with the statute and should have complied with the certification requirement, for it to be admissible in the court of law. As rightly stated above, Oral evidence in the place of such certificate, as is the case in the present matter, cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. 22. To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last Seen Theory and Recovery, that supported the conviction of A2 according to the High Court, is found to be non­conclusive and the evidence supporting the conviction of A2 is marred with inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making it impossible to sustain a conviction solely on such circumstantial evidence.

[ SUPREME COURT ]

  click here for read the judgment  19865_2011_9_1501_35499_Judgement_04-May-2022 Vaibhav tomar   all rights reserved by Vaibhav tomar