Call Detail Records Inadmissible Without S.65B Certificate Leading to Key Conspiracy Acquittals in Murder Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-05-19

Legal Awareness & Information.

HP High Court Acquits Two in Jain Oil Mills Murder Conspiracy, Cites Inadmissible Call Records; Upholds Murder Conviction for Three Others

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – January 10, 2025 – The High Court of Himachal Pradesh today delivered a significant judgment in a batch of appeals (Cr. Appeal No. 480 of 2017 & others) stemming from the 2013 murder of Vinod Kumar Jain , owner of Jain Oil Mills. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , acquitted Pradeep Gupta , the factory manager, and Anil Kumar @ Sethu , a taxi operator, of charges including murder and criminal conspiracy. The acquittals were primarily based on the inadmissibility of crucial call detail records due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and a lack of other sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy.

However, the Court upheld the convictions of three other accused – Rajeev Kaushal , Sunil Kumar @ Charna, and Arun Kumar @ Manee – for the murder of Vinod Kumar Jain under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Their life sentences were confirmed. Rajeev Kaushal 's conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also maintained. All appellants were, however, acquitted of charges under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The judgment, reserved on December 21, 2024, meticulously analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the arguments raised by the appellants against their conviction by the Trial Court.

Case Background

The case dates back to February 14, 2013, when Vinod Kumar Jain was shot dead outside his factory in the Mehatpur Industrial Area. The prosecution alleged that Pradeep Gupta , who managed Jain's factory, had embezzled funds and, to conceal this, conspired with Anil Kumar @ Sethu to hire Rajeev Kaushal , Sunil Kumar @ Charna, and Arun Kumar @ Manee to murder Vinod Jain . The Trial Court had convicted all five under Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, with Rajeev Kaushal also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The appellants challenged their convictions, arguing that the case was based on circumstantial evidence with missing links, unreliable and contradictory witness testimonies, and inadmissible evidence.

Key Legal Determinations by the High Court

The High Court's judgment turned on several critical legal points:

1. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence (Call Detail Records): The Court found that the call detail records (CDRs), which the prosecution relied on to establish links between Pradeep Gupta , Anil Kumar @ Sethu , and the other accused, were inadmissible. > "Learned Trial Court held that in the absence of the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the call detail records were inadmissible in evidence." (Para 79) The High Court, citing landmark Supreme Court judgments including Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal , reiterated that: > "An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied." (Excerpt from Anvar P.V. cited in Para 79 of judgment, referencing Para 22 of Anvar P.V. ) The Court concluded: "Thus, learned Trial Court had rightly discarded the call details record." (Para 84)

2. Proof of Criminal Conspiracy: With the CDRs deemed inadmissible, the Court found insufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy involving Pradeep Gupta and Anil Kumar @ Sethu . > "The learned Trial Court further held that the call detail record is only one piece of evidence, and even if it is excluded, the other evidence established that accused Pradeep Gupta and Anil @ Sethu had entered into a conspiracy. However, learned Trial Court has not given the details of the other evidence." (Para 85) The Court held that motive alone (alleged embezzlement by Pradeep Gupta ) was insufficient to prove conspiracy to murder, and mere business association ( Pradeep hiring Anil 's taxi) did not imply conspiracy. > "There was no evidence on record that Pradeep Gupta and Rajeev Kaushal were in touch with each other." (Para 93) > "Therefore, the learned Trial Court erred in holding accused Pradeep Gupta guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC." (Para 96, similar reasoning applied to Anil Kumar @ Sethu in Para 89)

3. Eyewitness Testimony and Identification: The Court carefully evaluated the testimonies of eyewitnesses Dharma Nand (PW15) and Duben Prasad @ Pandey (PW16). It found Dharma Nand 's testimony more reliable, noting material improvements in Duben Prasad 's account. > "Hence, the testimony of Duben Prasad @ Pandey has to be discarded that he had seen a boy shouting... These are material improvements... and cannot be believed." (Para 27) Regarding the identification of Rajeev Kaushal , Sunil Kumar, and Arun Kumar , the Court noted their refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP). Citing Munna v. State (NCT of Delhi) , the Court stated: > "...where the accused had refused to undergo a test identification parade, it is not permissible for them to contend that their identification in the Court is not proper..." (Para 41) The testimony of Chajju Ram (PW4), who saw the three near the crime scene before the incident, further corroborated their presence.

4. Disclosure Statement and Weapon Recovery: The recovery of the gun at the instance of Rajeev Kaushal , based on his disclosure statement (Ext. PW1/D), was deemed proven and linked the weapon to the crime. > "Thus, it is duly proved that the gun recovered at the instance of Rajeev Kaushal was used for shooting. This provides valuable corroboration to the testimony of Dharma Nand (PW15) that Rajeev had shot at the deceased, and the accused, Sunil and Arun Kumar were present with him." (Para 77)

5. Arms Act Charges (Section 27 vs. Section 25): The High Court acquitted all appellants of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It reasoned that Section 27 applies to the use of "prohibited arms" or use in contravention of specific licensing provisions for manufacture/sale (Section 5) or prohibited arms (Section 7). > "In the present case, there is no evidence that the firearm recovered by the police falls within the definition of a prohibited firearm. Hence the provisions of Section 27 of the Arms Act will not apply to the present case." (Para 108) However, Rajeev Kaushal 's conviction under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act (for possessing and using a firearm without a license) was upheld, and his three-year sentence for this offence was deemed not excessive.

6. Defective Investigation and Other Evidentiary Issues: The Court also addressed arguments regarding defective investigation (e.g., non-seizure of certain mobile phones), stating that such lapses do not automatically lead to acquittal if other evidence is credible, citing Karnel Singh vs. State . Similarly, it held that statements under Section 161 CrPC and inquest reports are not substantive evidence.

Final Decision and Implications

Based on its detailed analysis, the High Court:

* Allowed the appeals of Pradeep Gupta and Anil Kumar @ Sethu , acquitting them of all charges. They were directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC.

* Partly allowed the appeals of Rajeev Kaushal , Sunil Kumar @ Charna, and Arun Kumar @ Manee . They were acquitted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, but their convictions for murder under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC were upheld, along with their life sentences. Rajeev Kaushal ’s conviction and three-year sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act were also affirmed.

* Dismissed the revision petition filed by Pradeep Gupta challenging the Trial Court's order to release laptop data to Babita Jain (wife of the deceased), finding the order justified.

This judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements like Section 65B of the Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic evidence. It also clarifies the distinct ingredients required to prove criminal conspiracy beyond mere suspicion or motive and differentiates the applicability of Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.