Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State of Karnataka & Anr.

Held: Though the compliance of s.65B is mandatory however, there is no straitjacket formula to arrive at the conclusion of such due compliance, with specific reference to the CDR – It is the duty of the concerned Court to satisfy itself on such compliance, by taking due note of the requisite certificate produced u/s.65-B(4) coupled with the oral evidence adduced by the competent officer on behalf of the Telecom Service Provider – The one who speaks in support of such certificates, should have no other interest in the case and therefore, has to be considered as a Court witness – In the present case, PW-24 and PW-25 were holding a ‘responsible official position’ at the respective companies, as required u/s.65-B(4) – It is not necessary for the said officers to be holding positions of technical expertise, and is enough if they depose to the ‘best of their knowledge or belief’ – Their testimonies with respect to the certificates and the CDR remain clear, despite being subjected to exhaustive crossexamination and, mere discrepancies per se would not lead the Court to hold that there was no due compliance – Also, there was no specific denial or explanation offered by even the accused persons, when presented with the overwhelming evidence on the numerous calls/SMSes showing the unusually high number of communications exchanged between the accused persons during the relevant period of time – On facts, the CDR furnished by both Reliance and Airtel are admissible in accordance with s.65-B(4). [Paras 64-66] Evidence – Call Detail Records (CDR) – Evidentiary value: Held: While CDR data may not be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, it is certainly to be used for appropriate corroboration – One has to see the attending circumstances to decide the evidentiary value of CDR – In a given factual scenario, the Court can place heavy reliance upon the same for the purpose of rendering a conviction however, proving the guilt depends upon the degree of probability. [Para 86]

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Relevance:

Held: When a case is founded on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative to establish the motive of the accused to commit the offence as it serves as the foundation of the evidentiary chain that ultimately leads to the implication of the accused. [Para 55] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27:

Held: The recovery of the steel rod (M.O.11) was made at the instance of A-2 which was witnessed by PW-30 (an independent witness) who duly affixed his signature on the seizure mahazar marked as Exhibit P-87 – Both the Courts rightly accepted the evidence of PW-30 which cannot be eschewed solely on the ground that the other panch witness was not examined by the prosecution, despite being cited as a witness – The recovery of M.O.11 was effected from a secluded place in a military compound – It was picked up from the bush, on being identified by A-2 – Merely because A-1 was also present during the recovery, it cannot be said that the recovery was effectuated on the basis of joint disclosure made by A-1 and A-2, and thus, is inadmissible – Moreover, the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 were also recorded separately and marked as Exhibits – The argument of the appellants that the link required u/s.27 is missing due to the absence of the panch witnesses while recording the disclosure statements of the accused is also not accepted, on the facts of the case, as the presence of the witness to the disclosure statement is not a mandate and only one of prudence – The mere absence of the witness to the disclosure statement is hardly sufficient to hold that the recovery itself is doubtful. [Paras 87, 88]

Evidence – Reliability of – Duty of Courts:

Held: Evidence is the material for unearthing the truth which is the foundational duty of the Court – In order to do so, a fact has to be proved by taking due note of the matters made available before the Court – To prove a fact, the adequate parameter is the degree of probability – Thus, the evidence adduced before the Court, can be accepted either in toto or in part – Furthermore, it can also be rejected – A Court shall apply its mind to the evidence available to arrive at a just conclusion. [Paras 47, 48] Constitution of India – Art.161 – Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases – Objective of – Scope and ambit of power u/Art.161 – Power u/Art.161 vis-à-vis ss.473, 474, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to ss.432, 433, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Paras 14-16] Criminal Law – Causes, effect of crime and its remedy – Offences committed by women, reasons – Discussed. [Paras 4-12]