State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Vishwanath Darandale & Ors
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Criminal Appeal No. 949/2018
Before Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari and Justice Sandeep K. Shinde
Decided on December 02, 2019 

Relevancy of the case: Admissibility of CDRs and certificate requirements under Section 65B

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2(1)(t))
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 3, 8, 27, 65A, 65B, 106)
• The Indian Penal Code,1860 (Section 302 r/w 120B)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 194, 313, 366)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Sandeep Thanwar, Rahul Kandare and Sachin Gharu (all three deceased victims) were working as sweepers at the Trimurti Prathisthan College in Ahmednagar district.
• Sachin, who belonged to a scheduled caste, fell in love with the daughter of accused number 5, who belonged to an upper Maratha class. The daughter of the accused number 5 was pursuing a B.Ed course from Trimurti College.
• When family members learnt about her alleged love affair with Sachin, the accused number 1 to 7 hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Sachin Sohanlal Gharu.
• The prosecution’s narrative is that on January 01, 2013, the accused, on the pretext of repairing/cleaning the septic tank. secured the presence of the deceased victims at the farmhouse of accused number 5 at Darandale Vasti, Ganeshwadi, Sonai, Taluka Nevasa, District Ahmednagar.
• At the insistence of the accused, all deceased victims reached Darandale Vasti on the afternoon of 1^st January 2013 at around 1 PM to clean the septic tanks. The farmhouse of the Darandale family in Darandale Vasti is an isolated place.
• Brother of Sandeep Thanwar contacted accused number 3 as his brother did not return home in the evening. Accused number 3 told the deceased victim’s brother that Sandeep and his 2 friends left the place in the afternoon. However, at 8:30 PM, he came to know that Sandeep’s body was found lying in the toilet block’s septic tank at the farmhouse.
• Accused number 5 reported the accidental death of Sandeep to the police. A case of Accidental Death was registered before the Police. On January 02, 2013, accuseds number 1 and 2 disclosed that the bodies of other deceased victims were buried in the water-less well inside the farmhouse premises.

Prominent arguments by the Counsels

• The accused’s counsels disputed the authenticity and admissibility of the electronic evidence in the form of CDR. They objected to its admissibility for want of strict compliance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Furthermore, they contested the nodal officers (from three service providers) evidence and the certificates they issued under Section 65B. The Nodal Officer provided the CDR of 2 cell phones used by Sandeep Thanwar and Sachin Gharu of Vodafone for the first time on March 13, 2013.
• However, the investigating officers possessed the CDRs of the accused and the deceased before March 13, 2013. The contents of the letter addressed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Superintendent of Police dated March 11, 2013, displayed these facts. Consequently, the letter dated March 11, 2013, admits that the prosecution unofficially possessed the CDRs before March 13, 2013.
• Thus, on the basis of such unofficial CDRs, the counsel claimed that the prosecution manipulated official CDRs provided on/or after March 13, 2013. Furthermore, the CDRs relied upon are ‘tailor-made’ to suit the prosecution’s case, which is unreliable. Hence, the CDRs are inadmissible.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench perused through the deposition of the nodal officer. It observed that a nodal officer of a service provider can obtain CDR information by using his login password.
• Furthermore, per the deposition, the Nodal Officer confirmed that CDRs were printed in his presence and he identified his signature.
• The bench thus, concluded that the Nodal Officer is a competent authority to issue a certificate under Section 65B. Moreover, this procedure substantially complied with the requirements envisaged in Section 65B.

Final Decision

• The bench thus, admitted the CDRs and convicted the accused 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under IPC.
• The bench, in addition, upheld the death sentence penalty.

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