Criminal

Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 830 - S.65B Evidence Act - Art.161 Constitution

CaseCiter

16 Jul 2025 • 5 min read

We do not think it is proper to hide the judgment itself from you. However, you must sign in or subscribe to read the notes we have made on this judgment.

Click Here To Read Judgment

💡

Law of Evidence

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65B - The compliance of this provision is mandatory. However, there is no straitjacket formula to arrive at the conclusion of such due compliance, with specific reference to the CDR. It is the duty of the concerned Court to satisfy itself on such compliance, by taking due note of the requisite certificate produced under Section 65-B(4) of the IEA, coupled with the oral evidence adduced by the competent officer on behalf of the TSP. One must understand that in contrast to the other prosecution witnesses, the one who speaks in support of such certificates, has no other interest in the case and therefore, has to be considered as a Court witness, having no axe to grind with anyone. He deposes on behalf of the TSP, concentrating only with respect to the certificate issued. Thus, in the absence of any fundamental flaw in his testimony, with competency to depose on behalf of the TSP, the Court is expected to take due note of it, accordingly. (Para 64) Officers- It is not necessary for the said officers to be holding positions of technical expertise, and is enough if they depose to the ‘best of their knowledge or belief’ (Para 65) CDR - The information pertaining to CDR is stored in huge servers, which cannot be produced before the Court, and are thus, produced by way of printouts which qualify as secondary evidence. (Para 63) while CDR data may not be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, it is certainly to be used for appropriate corroboration. One has to see the attending circumstances to decide the evidentiary value of CDR. For example, where the evidence is so overwhelming and the conduct of an accused is such that he is bound to give a sufficient explanation for it, but fails to do so, the CDR might even take the position of substantive evidence. Therefore, in a given factual scenario, the Court can place heavy reliance upon the same for the purpose of rendering a conviction. Suffice it is to state that proving the guilt depends upon the degree of probability. (Para 86)
Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - The presence of the witness to the disclosure statement is not a mandate and only one of prudence. The mere absence of the witness to the disclosure statement is hardly sufficient to hold that the recovery itself is doubtful. (Para 88)
Evidence adduced before the Court, can be accepted either in toto or in part. Furthermore, it can also be rejected. A Court shall apply its mind to the evidence available to arrive at a just conclusion. (Para 48)
When a case is founded on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative to establish the motive of the accused to commit the offence. This is because it serves as the foundation of the evidentiary chain that ultimately leads to the implication of the accused. (Para 55)
Circumstantial Evidence - (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 54)

💡

Constitutional Law

Constitution of India - Article 161 - Notwithstanding the existence of a Circular or a Rule introduced by way of a statutory power under Section 473 of the BNSS, the constitutional powers granted under Article 161 of the Constitution, can also be exercised in a given case. Thus, even in cases where statutory mechanisms exist, the constitutional mandate under Article 161 of the Constitution remains inviolable and exercisable, in order to ensure that justice in individual cases is not constrained by procedural norms.
Constitutional Power - A constitutional power is fundamentally different and distinct from a statutory one. While statutory powers are derived from laws enacted by legislatures and remain subject to amendment or repeal, constitutional powers originate from the Constitution itself. (Para 15)

External Links:

Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 830 - S.65B Evidence Act - Art.161 Constitution

Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 830 - S.65B Evidence Act - Art.161 Constitution.pdf

1 MB

External Links: