2017 (7) TMI 1366 - SC - Indian Laws

Abduction and murder of Ramesh Jain - Conviction under Section 328 read with 201 IPC - permissibility of an objection regarding inadmissibility at this stage - Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act - HELD THAT - Admittedly, no objection was taken when the CDRs were adduced in evidence before the Trial Court. It does not appear from the record that any such objection was taken even at the appellate stage before the High Court. It is nobody s case that CDRs which are a form of electronic record are not inherently admissible in evidence. The objection is that they were marked before the Trial Court without a certificate as required by Section 65B (4) - The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the Court could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. It is also clear from the above judgments that objections regarding admissibility of documents which are per se inadmissible can be taken even at the appellate stage. Admissibility of a document which is inherently inadmissible is an issue which can be taken up at the appellate stage because it is a fundamental issue. The mode or method of proof is procedural and objections, if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage. If the objections to the mode of proof are permitted to be taken at the appellate stage by a party, the other side does not have an opportunity of rectifying the deficiencies. An objection that CDRs are unreliable due to violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 65 B (4) cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage as the objection relates to the mode or method of proof. Whether the accused is competent to waive his right to mode of proof? - HELD THAT - The witness, who had deposed earlier, did not appear in the subsequent proceeding on the ground that he was unable to move from his house because of tuberculosis, as deposed by the process server. There was no medical evidence in this regard. The Court observed that the question of whether or not he was incapable of giving evidence must be proved in this context, and in the proof of such a fact it was a condition that statements given in an earlier proceeding can be taken as proved in a subsequent proceeding. Section 294 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 provides a procedure for filing documents in a Court by the prosecution or the accused. The documents have to be included in a list and the other side shall be given an opportunity to admit or deny the genuineness of each document. In case the genuineness is not disputed, such document shall be read in evidence without formal proof in accordance with the Evidence Act. The judgment of the High Court confirming the Trial Court is upheld - appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the conviction and sentencing of the accused.
2. Admissibility of Call Detail Records (CDRs) without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Reliability of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt.
4. Validity of the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused.
5. Competency of the accused to waive the mode of proof in criminal cases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Conviction and Sentencing of the Accused:
The appellants were found guilty of abduction and murder of Ramesh Jain and sentenced to life imprisonment. Their conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. The Trial Court relied on the testimonies of PW1 and PW3, recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused, and CDRs to conclude that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

2. Admissibility of Call Detail Records (CDRs) without a Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act:
The CDRs were adduced in evidence without any objection from the defense during the trial. The appellant argued that the CDRs are inadmissible without the certificate as required by Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, as clarified in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer. However, the Court held that objections regarding the mode or method of proof must be raised at the trial stage. Since no objection was raised at the trial, the CDRs were deemed admissible.

3. Reliability of Circumstantial Evidence in Establishing Guilt:
The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that the circumstances must be cogently established, unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, and form a complete chain leading to the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused. The circumstances included the deceased being missing, the demand for ransom, the recovery of the dead body, and the articles belonging to the deceased. The Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction.

4. Validity of the Recoveries Made Pursuant to the Disclosure Statements of the Accused:
The recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused were significant in establishing their guilt. For instance, the registration certificate of the deceased's motorcycle was recovered from A1, and several personal belongings of the deceased were recovered from A5's shop. The Court found these recoveries credible and corroborative of the prosecution's case.

5. Competency of the Accused to Waive the Mode of Proof in Criminal Cases:
The Court discussed whether the accused could waive the mode of proof in criminal cases. It was held that objections to the mode of proof must be raised at the trial stage. The failure to object at the trial stage amounts to a waiver of the necessity for formal proof. The Court referred to Section 294 of the Cr. P.C., which allows for the waiver of formal proof if the genuineness of documents is not disputed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, confirming the conviction and sentencing of the accused. The appeals were dismissed, and the Court emphasized the importance of raising objections to the mode of proof at the trial stage to avoid procedural deficiencies. The judgment also highlighted the principles governing the admissibility of electronic records and the reliability of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.