Call Detail Records Not Admissible Without Section 65-B Certificate

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria of the Supreme Court, in Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2026), acquitted an accused convicted in a murder case, holding that Call Detail Records (CDRs) are inadmissible in evidence unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63 of the BSA).  

• The Court set aside concurrent judgments of the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court, reaffirming that oral testimony of telecom officials cannot substitute the statutory certification requirement for electronic evidence.

What was the Background of Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from the 2010 murder of a woman, with the prosecution alleging that the deceased's husband conspired with the appellant to commit the crime. 
• To establish the alleged conspiracy, the prosecution relied on Call Detail Records showing frequent contact between the two accused around the time of the incident. 
• The prosecution also relied on the recovery of a blood-stained shirt allegedly matching the deceased's blood group, and recovery of ₹46,000 purportedly paid to the appellant for committing the murder. 
• The appellant challenged the admissibility of the CDRs on the ground that the prosecution had failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. 
• The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction, following which the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the Section 65-B certificate is a mandatory prerequisite for electronic evidence, and its absence renders CDRs wholly inadmissible. It rejected the State's argument that examining telecom nodal officers as witnesses could substitute the certificate, holding that oral evidence cannot replace a statutory requirement. 
• On the recovery of ₹46,000, the Court found the prosecution's case unreliable, noting that the amount counted in court was ₹46,145 — casting doubt on the very factum of recovery. It held that mere recovery of currency notes without a link to the crime cannot constitute an incriminating circumstance. 
• On the FSL report, the Court found that the chain of custody was broken, with unexplained discrepancies in the malkhana register, rendering the forensic report a "redundant and worthless piece of paper." 
• The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and accordingly acquitted the appellant, directing his immediate release.

What is Section 63 of the BSA?

Section 63 of BSA – Admissibility of Electronic Records 

• Section 63(1) –  Electronic records (printouts, optical/magnetic/semiconductor storage, or any computer/device output) are admissible as documents without needing the original, provided certain conditions are met.
• Section 63(2) – Four Conditions for Admissibility- 
  • The computer/device was regularly used during the relevant period for the activity in question. 
  • Information was regularly fed into the system in the ordinary course of those activities. 
  • The computer was operating properly during the material period (or any malfunction didn't affect the record's accuracy). 
  • The electronic record reproduces or derives from information fed in during normal activities. 
• Section 63(3) – If multiple computers or devices were used (standalone, networked, via intermediary, etc.), they are all treated as a single computer for the purposes of this section.
• Section 63(4) – A certificate must be submitted alongside every electronic record at each instance of admission, which must: 
  • Identify the record and describe how it was produced. 
  • Give details of the device(s) involved. 
  • Address the conditions in Section 63(2). 

The certificate must be signed by the person in charge of the device or relevant activities, along with an expert, and is accepted as evidence on a best-of-knowledge basis.