Runeet Gulathi v. State
2019 (4) Crimes 285 (Del.)
In the High Court of Delhi
Crl A 1175/2018, Crl M (Bail) 1815/2018, Crl M (Bail) 1997/2018, 536/2019, Crl A 27/2019, 60/2019, Crl M (Bail) 107/2019
Before Justice Manmohan and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Decided on September 20, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Requiring the Section 65B certificate for CDRs in nexus with the crime

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2(t))
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 302, 380, 404, 449)
• The Indian Evidence Act,1872 (Section 65A, 65B)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The Police Control Room received a call regarding a dead body lying near VIPS College. The Investigating Officer, and the Crime Team, inspected and photographed the crime scene. Since they couldn’t recover anything to identify the deceased, they sent the dead body to the mortuary. Subsequently, Sanjeev Kapoor identified the deceased as his son, Shivam Kapoor @ Pandey.
• During the course of the investigation, police officers arrested the appellants and recovered various articles, pursuant to their disclosure statements.
• According to the prosecution, when Shivam met the appellants, they took him in a Swift car bearing registration number 3335 and, on their way, asked him for money kept at his home.
• Upon receiving Shivam’s refusal, they inflicted injuries on his body with a paper cutter. Consequently, one of the appellants shot a bullet in his abdomen. Using an Accent Car, they dumped the body in front of the college..
• The appellants found the trial court’s judgment to be impugned on the basis of insufficient evidence to prove their guilt and thus, appealed the judgment.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The appellant’s counsel contended that the prosecution did not furnish a Section 65B certificate for the call data records to prove the appellant’s guilt in committing the crime.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench was of the opinion that the call detail records (CDRs) of the mobile phones used by the appellant and the CCTV footage That the Investigating Agency obtained during the course of the investigation undoubtedly points out the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, this strengthens the prosecution’s case.
• Furthermore, per Shahfi Mohammed, the requirement of the certificate can be relaxed where it necessitates the interest of justice.

Final Decision

• The bench thus dismissed the appeal and admitted the evidence.

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