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: Satisfaction of requirements under Section 65B when CDRs are in the direct 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 Evidence Act,1872 (Section 65A, 65B)
Relevant Facts of the Case
- On 18.07.2012, at about 4:30 am, a call was received at the Police Control Room regarding dead body lying near VIPS College. Investigating Officer, as well as Crime Team, reached the spot. The spot was inspected and photographed. Nothing was recovered to identify the deceased and the dead body was sent to the mortuary. Later, the body was identified as Shivam Kapoor @ Pandey S/o Sanjeev Kapoor.
- During the course of the investigation, appellants were arrested and various articles, pursuant to their disclosure statements, were recovered.
- As per the case of the prosecution, when Shivam met the appellants, they took him in a Swift car bearing registration number 3335 and, on their way, asked him about the money kept at his home. Shivam expressed his reluctance to which they inflicted injuries on his body with a paper cutter and one of the appellants shot a bullet on his abdomen. Subsequently, they arrived at the residence of one of the appellants at Sector-15, Rohini where he asked his wife (also an appellant) for the keys of their Accent Car.
Opinion of the Bench
- The bench was of the opinion that the call detail records (CDRs) of the mobile phones used by the appellants as well as the CCTV footage obtained by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation undoubtedly points out towards the guilt of the appellants and strengthen the story set up by the prosecution.
- The appeal was dismissed and the opinion of the trial court was reiterated.
- The mobile phone records, even though not in accordance with the certificate requirements as established under Section 65B, were considered to be admitted as electronic evidence due to the direct nexus with the same.