LexSONU@AMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 151 SONU@AMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA / (Criminal Appeal Np.1418 of2013) JULY 18,2017 [S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 120B, 364A, 302, 328A and 201 - Abduction and murder - On facts, abduction and murder of victim - Conviction of C Al to A5 for the offences punishable u/s. 120B, 364A, 302, 328A and 201 and sentenced to life imprisonment - Conviction of A6 uls. 328 and 201 and sentenced to seven years - On the basis of testimonies of PWJ and PW3, recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused and Call Detail Records (CDR) D of the mobile phones of the accused - Upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: Prosecution proved the arrest and subsequent recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statement made by Al, interested testimonies of DWs 2 and 5 does not merit acceptance - Dead body of the victim-deceased was ident(fied by his relatives - As regards A4, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that he was E in constant touch with other accused - His mobile phone and recoveries were made pursuant to the disclosure statement clearly proves his involvement-As regards A5, recovery of deceased s wallet from underneath his seat reliable - Thus, the judgment of the High Court is upheld. F Evidence Act, 1872: s. 65B (4) - interpretation - Admissibility of electronic records - Admissibility of Call Detail Record (CDR) - No objection taken when the CDRs were adduced in evidence before the trial court or appellate stage before the High Court - Permissibility of G an objection regarding inadmissibility at this stage - Held: ·Objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit and not later - Crucial test is whether the d~fect could have been cured at the stage . of marking the document - Objections regarding admissibility of 151 H 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A documents which are per se inadmissible can be taken even at the appellate stage because it is a .fundamental issue - Mode or method of proof is procedural and objections, if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage - Objection that CDRs are unreliable due to violation of the procedure prescribed in s. 65 B (4 B cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage as the objection relates to the mode or method of proof - Chainchal Singh s case does not lay down a general proposition taht the acrnsed is not competent to waive his right to object to the mode of proof of a document in a criminal case. c s. 65B (4) - Certificate for proving electronic records - Held: Contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions contained in s. 65B - Electronic record is not admissible unless it is accompanied by a certificate as contemplated uls. 65B (4) - This Court in 2014, in Anvar's case held that an electronic record is inadmissible in evidence without the D certification - This Court in 2005 in Navjot Sandhu's case held that there was no necessity of a certificate for proving electronic records which held the field till it was overruled in Anvar's case - In Anvar's case, the Court did not apply principle of 'prospective overruling' - If the judgment in Anvar's case is applied E F retrospectively, it would result in unscrambling past transactions and adversely affecting the administration of justice - As Anvar's case was decided by a Three Judge Bench, in view of judicial propriety this Court refrains from declaring that the judgment would be prospective in operation - Matter left open to be decided in an appropriate case by a Three Judge Bench - Principle of 'prospective overruling' - Retrospective operation - Judicial propriety. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 294 - Procedure for filing documents in a court by the prosecution or the accused - Documents have to be included in a list and the other side shall be given an opportunity to admit or G deny the genuineness of each document - In case the genuineness H is not disputed, such document shall be read in evidence without formal proof in accordance with the Evidence Act. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 An electronic record is not admissible unless it SONU @AMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 153 is accompanied by a certificate as contemplated under Section A 65B (4) of the Evidence Act. As regards the permissibility of an objection regarding inad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.