IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Md. Sarfaraz Alam @ Sarfaraz Alam, son of Md. Moinuddin – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Revision No.490 of 2023
Decided on : 13-10-2023
Indian Penal Code - Offence under Section 354-A, 354-D, 504 and 506 - Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act - Admissibility of electronic records
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for making obscene phone calls and threatening the victim. The victim, a police officer, received repeated calls from the petitioner, leading to mental distress. The prosecution relied on electronic evidence of the phone calls.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction was based on the victim's testimony and corroborating statements from police personnel. However, the prosecution failed to produce a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the electronic evidence, rendering it inadmissible. The court held that the absence of this certificate was fatal to the prosecution's case.
Issues: The key issue was the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was not satisfied by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that electronic evidence, such as call details, must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to be admissible. The absence of this certificate rendered the electronic evidence inadmissible, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted from the charges, and the bail bond was cancelled.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2023, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No.307 of 2022 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 354-A, 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI of two years for the offence under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, RI of two years for the offence under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, it is directed to undergo further SI of six months, RI of two years for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and RI of two years for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of prosecution case leading to this Criminal Revision are that the informant Meenu Kumari, the then officer-in-charge of Mahila Police Station, Chaibasa gave the written information with the Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa with these allegations that while she was posted as officer-in-charge of Mahila Police Station, Sadar, Chaibasa, on 25.02.2022, at 09:06 she received a phone call from the mobile No.9341620493 on her mobile No.8340715873 while she was at her residential quarter of Police Center, Chaibasa. After having received phone call, she asked the name and address of caller, he immediately requested her to make video call and also asked to pick up the same. She again asked the name and address of that person but he did not tell the same and disconnected the phone call. He again made the phone call over her mobile phone, on which, she told him her name and designation and also directed not to call further, on which, he behaved her in obscene language. She also made several efforts to make him understand, but he hurled filthy abuse, criminally intimidated her and threatened to outrage her modesty. He said to her that no one can do worst to him and whatever she to do, she could do. When she saw the call details of her mobile, she found that the person had given a missed call on 21.09.2021 and a call for four seconds on 24.09.2021. The bearer of the said mobile No.9341620493 had been continuously calling over her mobile phone, for the same, she was mentally disturbed. On this written information along with the call history details, which was annexed with the FIR, Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.0024 of 2022 was registered under Sections 354, 354-A, 354D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the bearer of mobile No.9341620493.
3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused Sarfaraz Alam under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Chaibasa took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial.
4. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused Sarfaraz Alam under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code the same was read over and explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial.
5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence altogether five witnesses have been examined i.e. P.W.-1, Abhishek Kumar; P.W.-2, Satyam Kumar; P.W.-3, Minu Kumari (informant); P.W.-4, Someshwar Kumar Singh and; P.W.-5, Dinesh Kumar Mandal and in documentary evidence the prosecution has filed Exhibit-1/P/PW-3, Typed report of informant; Mark-‘X’/PW-3, Call details of mobile No.9341620493 of accused; Exhibit-P-1/PW-5, Endorsement on typed written report to register FIR; Exhibit P1/2/PW-5, Signature of Officer-in-c
The main legal point established is that electronic evidence, particularly call details, must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to be admissible in court.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and legally valid evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, including the proper sealing of seized materials....
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural requirements, including substantial compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., must be adhered to.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B(4)....
The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.