A kidnapping-for-ransom conviction dating back more than two decades has survived scrutiny before the Supreme Court, which held that the absence of call records from a rural telephone exchange cannot, by itself, undermine an otherwise well-supported prosecution case.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the conviction of two accused under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code in a case arising from a 2003 FIR. The Court rejected the argument that the prosecution’s failure to produce Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the alleged ransom demand fatally weakened its case.
The appellants had argued that the prosecution relied on a ransom call but failed to furnish documentary proof of the communication. They contended that the absence of CDRs and a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act cast serious doubt on the allegation that a ransom demand had ever been made. According to them, no concrete particulars of the telephone conversation had been established.
The Supreme Court, however, found the challenge unconvincing. Writing for the Bench, Justice Varale observed that where reliable and independent evidence establishes the demand for ransom, the non-availability of call records from a rural exchange in 2003 cannot be treated as a decisive flaw.
The Court pointed to the testimony of the victim’s father, who stated that after returning home following the registration of the FIR and a search for his son, he was informed by his daughters that a call demanding ₹5 lakh had been received on the family’s landline earlier that day. The account was supported by the statements of two witnesses who were present in the house and spoke consistently about the ransom demand.
The Bench also noted that the investigating officer testified that the victim’s father had informed him about the ransom call on the very day of the incident. The officer subsequently recorded the statement of the victim’s mother regarding the same demand.
Taking note of this chain of evidence, the Court concluded that the witnesses remained consistent and were not shaken during cross-examination. Their testimony, it said, provided sufficient proof of the ransom demand even in the absence of technical records.
Emphasising the realities of criminal investigations from that period, the Court observed that the lack of a CDR from a rural telephone exchange in 2003 could not be allowed to cripple the administration of justice when credible oral evidence clearly pointed in one direction.
Finding no reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the demand for ransom had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal.
