Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), while deciding connected criminal appeals, partly allowed the challenge to the trial court’s judgment. The Court upheld the conviction of accused Pradeep for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, and 387 IPC, along with Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act, confirming the life sentence for murder and conspiracy. However, the Court set aside the conviction of accused Divya under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC, holding that there was insufficient evidence to prove her participation in the conspiracy. The Court reiterated that “electronic evidence is admissible only upon strict compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act” and clarified the role of circumstantial evidence in conspiracy cases.
Facts
The case arose from the murder of Jitendra Bhatiya, who was shot dead on 27 April 2014 at his shop, “Mohan Trunk Depot,” in Ahmednagar. The prosecution case was that Pradeep, in conspiracy with Divya (the victim’s wife) and a third accused Vikram, demanded ransom of ₹30 lakhs from Jitendra’s family by repeated calls and SMS. When the ransom was not paid, Pradeep shot Jitendra using a country-made pistol supplied by Vikram.
Investigations revealed that Pradeep allegedly had illicit relations with Divya and, with her involvement, planned the murder to remove Jitendra. Police seized mobile SIM cards used for ransom calls, recovered the pistol and cartridges at Pradeep’s instance, and produced call detail records (CDRs) with Section 65-B certificates. While the trial court convicted all accused, during pendency of appeal Vikram died and his appeal abated. The remaining appeals concerned Pradeep and Divya.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence established Pradeep’s involvement in the murder and extortion conspiracy.
- Whether Divya’s conviction for conspiracy and destruction of evidence could be sustained in absence of direct proof.
- Whether the electronic records (CDRs, SDRs, and transcripts) were admissible and reliable under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Pradeep and Divya)
Pradeep argued that the prosecution’s story was inconsistent, citing two contradictory theories – extortion for ransom and alleged illicit relationship – both lacking direct evidence. He submitted that 13 prosecution witnesses turned hostile, that mobile handsets and SIMs allegedly seized from him were not proved through independent panch witnesses, and that no proper sealing of seized articles was shown. The ballistic recovery was doubtful, and no forensic voice analysis was carried out. He stressed that CDRs lacked valid Section 65-B certification, and transcripts of conversations without audio files were inadmissible.
Divya’s counsel argued that there was no credible proof of conspiracy, as no witness supported claims of her relationship with Pradeep. She was unfamiliar with Marathi, yet her disclosure statement was recorded in Marathi and never explained in Hindi. The alleged confessional statement before a Special Executive Magistrate was inadmissible under Section 164 CrPC. It was contended that her conviction was based merely on phone conversations and speculative claims of financial assistance to Pradeep, without independent corroboration.
Respondent’s Arguments (State)
The prosecution supported the trial court’s findings, asserting that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete. It pointed to ransom calls and messages traced to SIM cards found in Pradeep’s possession, corroborated by CDRs duly certified under Section 65-B. Ballistic reports confirmed that the fatal bullet matched the pistol recovered at his instance. An eyewitness (PW-12) had seen Pradeep with the pistol at the crime spot. As for Divya, the prosecution maintained that continuous phone contact with Pradeep and her financial contribution of ₹10,000 for purchasing the pistol established her complicity. It emphasized that minor lapses in investigation could not dilute overwhelming evidence.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the admissibility of electronic records. Referring to Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, it stressed that certification requirements are mandatory. It considered the judgments in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailas Gorantyal (2020) and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), holding that secondary electronic evidence cannot be admitted without strict statutory compliance. The Court noted that in this case, CDRs were duly certified by the Nodal Officer, fulfilling the statutory mandate.
On circumstantial evidence, the Court reiterated settled law that the chain must be complete and point only towards guilt of the accused, leaving no other hypothesis. The ransom calls, recovery of the pistol, and eyewitness account together satisfied this standard for Pradeep.
As to Divya, however, the Court found the evidence speculative. The alleged love affair was not proved; the disclosure statement was unreliable; and mere phone calls did not prove conspiracy. In absence of substantive evidence linking her to the crime, her conviction was unsustainable.
Precedent Analysis
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailas Gorantyal (2020, SC) – Reaffirmed that Section 65-B compliance is mandatory. Applied to assess admissibility of CDRs.
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014, SC) – Held that electronic evidence without 65-B certification is inadmissible. Cited to justify scrutiny of prosecution’s digital records.
- Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P. (2023, SC) – Clarified that absence of independent witnesses does not render discovery inadmissible. Relied on for seizure panchnamas doubted by defence.
- Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013, SC) and Rajbir Singh v. State of Punjab (2022, SC) – Cited by defence for principles on circumstantial evidence and benefit of doubt. Distinguished by Court, as prosecution’s chain was intact against Pradeep.
- State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. M.R. Hiremath (2019, SC) – Clarified stage of producing Section 65-B certificates. Cited to support admissibility of belatedly filed certificates.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that Jitendra’s death was clearly homicidal, caused by a gunshot wound. The ransom calls were traced to SIM cards seized from Pradeep, supported by CDRs certified under Section 65-B. Though panch witnesses turned hostile, police testimony was credible. Recovery of the pistol, corroborated by ballistic examination, directly connected Pradeep to the crime. The eyewitness further strengthened the case.
For Divya, the Court noted inconsistencies: there was no admissible confession, no independent evidence of financial contribution, and allegations of her motive remained unproven. It emphasized that criminal conspiracy must be established by cogent evidence; suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Pradeep’s conviction for murder, extortion, conspiracy, and Arms Act offences, affirming the life sentence. Divya’s conviction was quashed, granting her acquittal. The judgment highlights the critical importance of complying with Section 65-B for electronic evidence and underscores that conspiracy cannot rest merely on suspicion or circumstantial gaps.
Implications
This ruling reinforces strict evidentiary standards for electronic records, mandating complete Section 65-B certification for admissibility. It clarifies that while circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction, speculative allegations without corroboration cannot secure a conviction for conspiracy. It also sends a signal on careful judicial scrutiny of confessions, recovery procedures, and digital evidence in criminal trials.
FAQs
1. What did the Court say about Section 65-B certificates?
The Court held that electronic records like CDRs are admissible only with strict compliance of Section 65-B. Certificates describing production, device details, and official authority are mandatory.
2. Why was Divya acquitted while Pradeep’s conviction was upheld?
Divya’s alleged involvement was based only on suspicion and weak evidence such as phone conversations, without corroboration. In contrast, Pradeep’s guilt was proved through ransom calls, recovery of the weapon, and ballistic evidence.
3. Can hostile witnesses weaken a prosecution case?
Not necessarily. The Court clarified that even if independent panchas turn hostile, credible police testimony and scientific evidence can sustain conviction.
