CDR Data Can Only Be Used As Corroborative Piece Of Evidence, Can't Be Sole Basis For Conviction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that although the Call Detail Records (CDRs) may be an important and effective piece of evidence, which may facilitate and assist courts in ascertaining the presence of different participants in commission of an offence, the same can only be taken as supporting or a corroborative piece of evidence, and conviction cannot be made solely on basis of the CDR data.

While setting aside the conviction of an accused for the offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the CDRs relied on by the prosecution only proved that the accused were present near the place of occurrence on the day of the incident. However, the CDRs did not prove that the said accused actually participated in the commission of the offence, the court held.

The appellants, Azad @ Gaurav, Jitender @ Jitu and Bharat Kumar Goswami, challenged the judgment passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Tis Hazari Court, where they were convicted for the offence of dacoity under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for five years.

The accused argued before the high court that the trial court committed a gross error while placing reliance on CDR and that mere alleged presence of the accused in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence cannot be a ground of conviction.

After referring to the conviction order, the single judge observed that the trial court primarily relied on the testimony of the complainant victim, Manish Aggarwal, who was allegedly robbed by the accused; the Nodal Officers from different telecommunication companies, and the recoveries affected from the accused in pursuance of their disclosure statements.

“CDR data may be an important and effective piece of evidence which may facilitate and assists courts in ascertaining the presence of different participants in commission of an offence including the complainant and proposed accused at one particular place or location which may be their presence at or near the place of occurrence. However, CDR data can only be taken as supporting or corroborative piece of evidence and conviction cannot be made solely on basis of CDR data,” the bench said.

The court said that the CDR data cannot be safely relied on to establish their criminality for the offence of dacoity, and therefore, the trial court was not justified in convicting the accused under Section 395 IPC.

“The impugned judgment convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 395 was passed on factually and legally unsustainable surmises and assumptions and without adequate support of evidence. It is proved that the appellant Jitender @ Jitu and Azad @ Gaurav received/retained the stolen property. The prosecution, from the quality and quantity of evidence, could only prove guilt of the appellant Bharat Kumar Goswami for offence punishable under section 379/356/34 IPC and guilt of the appellants Jitender @ Jitu and Azad @ Gaurav for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC,” said the court.

The bench thus partly allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the trial court.

Case Title: Azad @ Gourav vs. State of GNCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 274

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Vibhor Garg & Mr. Pallav Awasthi, Advocates.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP