Akhil Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand
In the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
Cr A 77, 83, 157/2017
Before Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Alok Kumar Verma
Decided on September 02, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Admissibility of mobiles and CDRs without Section 65B certificate.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2(1)(t), 2(1)(o))
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63, 65A, 65B)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant Mr Akhil Agarwal was responsible for the kidnapping and murder of his deceased friend Mr Sachin Gupta.
• The appellant obtained a fake ID mobile number to make a ransom call to the informant.
• Consequently, the informant received a call on his mobile from the deceased’s number. At about 3 PM, a witness saw the deceased along with the appellants near the Government Hospital. The witness saw appellant Vimal Sharma with appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal near Manpur Tiraha, Kashipur on 24.11.2010 at about 06.00 p.m. and at that time Vimal Sharma was talking on his mobile to someone.
• Furthermore, the location was found through call data reports (CDR) and mobile devices which served as incriminating evidence for the accused’s presence at the scene of the crime. The mobile Numbers of the appellants were found to be in continuous contact with each other.
• Subsequently upon the identification of appellant Vimal Sharma, Hotel Register, Ext. Ka. 18, was taken into custody by the police from the Hotel Taj, Corbett, Ramnagar and recovered a cord used to strangulate the deceased.
• The trial judge felt that the prosecution had established its case against the accused Akhil Agarwal. However, the appellant felt aggrieved. Hence, he appealed the lower bench’s judgment.

Prominent arguments by the Advocates

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the only incriminating evidence is the mobile devices and CDRs Furthermore, he contested the admissibility of these reports without a Section 65-B certificate under the Evidence Act.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench perused through the relevant evidence that corroborated the incrimination of the accused.
• It further observed that the appellant used his mobile phone to make the ransom phone call and purchased that number to contact the deceased.
• However, per the Shahfi Mohammed case, the Court can relax the requirement of Section 65B certificate in the interest of justice where required. Hence, since the reports were conclusive on the appellant’s presence at the crime, they were admissible without the Section 65B certificate.

Final Decision

• The bench, thus dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower bench’s judgment.

इस केस के सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें | To read this case summary in Hindi, click here.