Prosecution may mark charge sheet documents like CDR through competent witnesses during trial without prejudice, allowing cross-examination.

Order

The petitioners/A1 to A3 have filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, permitting the prosecution to (i) produce the Call Detail Records (CDR) pertaining to Mobile No. 99621 93619 through P.W.15, and (ii) examine the Branch Manager of Karnataka Bank Limited to speak about the letter dated 28.04.2017 issued by the said Bank.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there exists a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner (A1) and the defacto complainant, who is her husband. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant returned from Dubai on 22.06.2016, and on the following day, i.e., 23.06.2016, when the defacto complainant, along with his parents and a relative Jaileshkumar, had gone to a restaurant at Orms Road for lunch, he was attacked by certain assailants when he got down from his vehicle. It is alleged that the said attack was arranged by the petitioner and her family members due to matrimonial discord and with an ulterior motive to plunder properties.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that the key witnesses present at the scene of occurrence, namely the parents of the defacto complainant and the said relative, have not supported the prosecution case. It was also contended that Mobile No. 99621 93619 does not belong to the petitioner, but to one Srinivasan, who is neither an accused nor a witness in the case. It was pointed out that the Karnataka Bank had issued a letter stating that SMS alerts relating to A1’s bank account were sent only to Mobile No. 98418 11099, thereby indicating that the petitioner was using only that number. It was further contended that the CDR would reveal that the said mobile number was active even from 01.06.2016, whereas the admitted position is that A1 arrived in Chennai only on 22.06.2016, and therefore, it cannot be conclusively inferred that the number was in the exclusive usage of the petitioner. It was argued that the present attempt to introduce these documents at this stage, after the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, is only to fill up lacunae and protract the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel also submitted that the defacto complainant had earlier made a representation dated 12.10.2024 to the Investigating Officer seeking similar relief, and subsequently filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.38022 of 2024, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 23.01.2025. It was contended that what could not be achieved directly is now sought to be achieved indirectly through the prosecution, and hence, the impugned order is unsustainable.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the mobile phone in question was seized from A8, who was arrested on 08.07.2016 in Crime No.672 of 2016 by the Inspector of Police, G3 Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. During his confession, A8 disclosed that the mobile phone bearing No. 99621 93619 had been handed over to him by the said Srinivasan, pursuant to which, it was seized. It was further submitted that, after seizure, the service provider was requested to furnish the call detail records, tower location and relevant data, which were collected and are sought to be marked through P.W.15, an official from Bharti Airtel. However, due to oversight, though the CDR details were collected, they were not marked earlier.

6. With regard to the Karnataka Bank letter, it was submitted that upon verification, certain discrepancies in the mobile number were noticed, and therefore, it has become necessary to examine the Branch Manager to clarify the same. It was emphas