The Supreme Court of India has ruled that call detail records (CDRs) cannot be treated as valid evidence in court unless they are backed by the mandatory certificate required under the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of this certification, the records are legally inadmissible.
A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N. V. Anjaria set aside the conviction of a man accused in a murder case after finding that the prosecution had relied heavily on electronic records that lacked the statutory authentication required by law.
The Court emphasized that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is not a procedural formality but a legal prerequisite. Without it, electronic records such as call logs cannot be admitted as proof. The bench noted that the certificate had never been properly produced or proved during the trial.
Importantly, the judges clarified that testimony from telecom officials cannot replace the statutory requirement. Oral statements, they said, cannot stand in for the certificate mandated by Section 65-B(4).
The ruling revisited earlier landmark decisions including Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, both of which firmly established that electronic evidence must be accompanied by a proper certification to be considered by courts.
Murder Case Built on Circumstantial Evidence
The case stemmed from the 2010 killing of a woman. Investigators alleged that her husband had conspired with the appellant to carry out the crime. To support the allegation, they relied on call records that supposedly showed frequent communication between the two around the time of the incident.
Once those records were ruled inadmissible, the remaining evidence was scrutinized closely.
Doubts Over Cash Recovery
Another piece of evidence involved the alleged recovery of ₹46,000 from the accused’s residence. The Court found inconsistencies here as well. While officials claimed ₹46,000 had been recovered, the money counted during court proceedings totalled ₹46,145. The unexplained discrepancy cast doubt on whether the recovery had occurred in the manner claimed.
The bench further observed that even if the money had been recovered, currency notes by themselves could not be treated as incriminating unless they were clearly linked to the crime.
Forensic Evidence Falls Apart
The prosecution had also relied on a blood-stained shirt allegedly seized from the accused. However, the Court found gaps in how the evidence had been handled before being sent to the forensic laboratory.
Records indicated that the samples had been dispatched and returned before being sent again, and there was no explanation for this movement. Because the chain of custody was not clearly maintained, the forensic report based on those samples lost its evidentiary value.
The bench described the report as “redundant and a worthless piece of paper.”
Chain of Circumstances Not Complete
Referring to the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that in cases built on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly established and must point unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
In this case, the chain broke at multiple points.
With the key electronic records inadmissible, doubts surrounding the alleged cash recovery, and the forensic evidence rendered unreliable, the Court concluded that the conviction could not stand. The earlier judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
