Tarun Sharma @ Vipul vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1486

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Tarun Sharma @ Vipul And Another - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 17319 of 2024)
Decided on : 03-01-2025

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 34, and 506 - Preservation of Call Data Records and CCTV footage - The appellants sought preservation of evidence relating to witnesses, claiming potential prejudice if the records expired before they could present their defense - The Trial Court and High Court rejected the plea, maintaining it could be considered when the defense presents its case - The Supreme Court emphasized that preserving the records is essential to prevent prejudice, since their destruction could impact the trial's fairness. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Right to a fair trial - The court highlighted that preserving potential evidence does not harm the prosecution or complainant while safeguarding the defense's ability to present its case fairly. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
The appellants are facing serious charges and argued for the urgent preservation of relevant Call Data Records during the ongoing trial, which has yet to reach the defense stage.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overriding the lower courts' decisions, and mandated the preservation of specific CDRs until their relevance could be assessed by the Trial Court.

Issues: The main issues were whether the request for evidence preservation was valid at this stage of the trial and the implications of such preservation on the trial's fairness.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that allowing preservation of CDRs is crucial to prevent prejudice to the appellants in the trial, highlighting the balance between the rights of the defense and the prosecution's interests.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. appellants' entitlement to preserve cdrs. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. state's argument on timing of preservation plea. (Para 5)
3. consideration of cdr relevance and potential prejudice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. court's directive on preservation of cdrs. (Para 9 , 10)
5. evidence relevance determined by the trial court. (Para 11)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The short issue that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the appellants, who are facing trial under Sections 302 , 147, 148, 149, 34 and 506 of the IPC, are entitled to seek preservation of the Call Data Records ('CDRs'), with tower location etc./CCTV footage, of the prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, for the period of 14.01.2023 to 20.01.2023.

3. The Trial Court as well as the High Court have turned down the appellants' prayer primarily on the ground that such a plea will be maintainable at the time when they will lead their defence evidence.

4. On the other hand, the case of the appellants is that as per the Rules framed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ('TRAI'), the mobile companies are obligated to preserve the CDRs for a period of two years only, and since the relevant period is from 14.01.2023 to 20.01.2023, the mandatory period for preservation will expire soon. Admittedly, the trial is still at the prosecution evidence stage and it necessarily follows that by the time the appellants will have their turn to lead evidence; the prescribed period shall stand expired.

5. Learned State counsel reiterates the submission that such a plea of the appellants can be considered by the Court at the stage of defence evidence alone.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material placed on record.

7. It seems to us that if, in the due course of events, it is found that the CDRs which the appellants seek to preserve have a direct bearing on the merits of the case, they are likely to be prejudiced in the pending trial, as the mobile companies would have already destroyed the relevant records.

8. On the other hand, if the mobile companies are directed to preserve the CDRs, thereby leaving it open for the Trial Court to determine the relevance of such records at an appropriate stage, no prejudice shall be caused to the prosecution or to the complainant.

9. Consequently, we allow this appeal; set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; and we also set aside order dated 22.12.2023, passed by the Trial Court.

10. We further direct the mobile companies, the details whereof are mentioned in the application dated 12.12.2023, moved by the appellants before the Trial Court, to preserve the CDRs of the witnesses, whose requisite details are also appended to the aforestated application. The CDRs shall be produced before the Trial Court as and when summoned, in accordance with law.

11. It goes without saying that the relevance of such evidence shall be determined by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage, and mere preservation of the records shall not accrue any undue advantage to the appellants.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document