LexKUM. SHUBHA @ SHUBHASHANKAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 859 : 2025 INSC 830 Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1029 of 2011) 14 July 2025 [M.M. Sundresh* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants by the High Court u/s.302 read with s.120-B, IPC and additionally, s.201, IPC for A-4 alone, is justified. Headnotes† Circumstantial Evidence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w 120B, s.201 – A-4 and the deceased were engaged – Though A-4 was engaged to the deceased however, she was not willing to get married to him and expressed her grievance to A-1, her close friend – A-1 sought help from his cousin, A-3, who roped in his friend, A-2 and the accused persons murdered the deceased – Accused were convicted u/s.120B and sentenced to life imprisonment; A-2 alone was convicted u/s.302 and A-4 was additionally convicted u/s.201 – High Court modified the conviction of the appellants to one u/s.302 r/w s.120B and confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment – Correctness: Held: Eyewitnesses’ account of the incident is discarded – The case rests purely on circumstantial evidence – The link for circumstantial evidence stands connected and proved, as the motive has been duly established through the evidence of PW-23, a friend of A-4 from Pre-University College who deposed in clear terms that A-4 confessed to him that she did not want to get married to the deceased; the voluminous CDR stands proved through the evidence of PW-24 and PW-25 and; the recovery of the weapon is also proved – In view of the adequacy of the evidence on record, the conviction of the appellants by the High Court u/s.302 read with s.120-B, IPC and additionally, s.201, IPC for A-4 alone, as well as the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them is confirmed – However, the appellants are permitted to file appropriate petitions * Author 860 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports seeking to invoke the power of pardon u/Art.161 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 54, 96, 98, 101] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.65B(4) – Call Detail Records (CDR) – Admissibility: Held: Though the compliance of s.65B is mandatory however, there is no straitjacket formula to arrive at the conclusion of such due compliance, with specific reference to the CDR – It is the duty of the concerned Court to satisfy itself on such compliance, by taking due note of the requisite certificate produced u/s.65-B(4) coupled with the oral evidence adduced by the competent officer on behalf of the Telecom Service Provider – The one who speaks in support of such certificates, should have no other interest in the case and therefore, has to be considered as a Court witness – In the present case, PW-24 and PW-25 were holding a ‘responsible official position’ at the respective companies, as required u/s.65-B(4) – It is not necessary for the said officers to be holding positions of technical expertise, and is enough if they depose to the ‘best of their knowledge or belief’ – Their testimonies with respect to the certificates and the CDR remain clear, despite being subjected to exhaustive cross- examination and, mere discrepancies per se would not lead the Court to hold that there was no due compliance – Also, there was no specific denial or explanation offered by even the accused persons, when presented with the overwhelming evidence on the numerous calls/SMSes showing the unusually high number of communications exchanged between the accused persons during the relevant period of time – On facts, the CDR furnished by both Reliance and Airtel are admissible in accordance with s.65-B(4). [Paras 64-66] Evidence – Call Detail Records (CDR) – Evidentiary value: Held: While CDR data may not be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, it is certainly to be used for appropriate corroboration – One has to see the attending circumstances to decide the evidentiary value of CDR – In a given factual scenario, the Court can place heavy reliance upon the same for the purpose of rendering a conviction however, proving the guilt depends upon the degree of probability. [Para 86] Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Relevance: Held: When a case is founded on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative to establish the motive of the accused to commit the [2025] 7 S.C.R. 861 Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. offence as it serves as the foundation of the evidentiar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.