2017 (7) TMI 1366 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms conviction based on testimonies, recoveries, and CDR evidence. Upholds principles on electronic records.

Sonu @ Amar Versus State Of Haryana

Sonu @ Amar Versus State Of Haryana - (2017) 8 SCC 570 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.