Summary
The Court upheld convictions in a kidnapping-for-ransom and murder case on a complete circumstantial chain. An objection to uncertified call-detail records, admitted without objection at trial, concerned a curable mode of proof and could not first be raised later. Whether Anvar should operate prospectively was expressly left open.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence established the appellants’ involvement.
- Whether absence of a Section 65B certificate could first be challenged after the call records had been exhibited without objection.
Provisions considered
- Section 65B(4), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The certificate requirement was acknowledged, but the belated objection here concerned a defect that a timely trial objection could have enabled the prosecution to cure. (¶ 23–28)
Held
- The recoveries, identification of the deceased, communications among the accused and other proved circumstances formed a complete chain supporting the concurrent convictions. Defence explanations did not displace it. (¶ 14–22)
- A distinction applies between inherently inadmissible evidence and an irregular mode of proving otherwise admissible evidence. The latter objection must be timely; the unobjected-to call records fell within that category, including in this criminal trial. (¶ 26–30)
- The Court declined to declare the three-judge Anvar decision prospective. That issue remained open for an appropriate three-judge bench and was unnecessary to this appeal’s disposal. (¶ 31–35)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment affirming the trial court upheld.