/2022 INSC 0346/ REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2019 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NO.9431 OF 2011] RAVINDER SINGH  @ KAKU                …..APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB          ……RESPONDENT WITH  CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1308­1311 OF 2019  (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NOs.9631­9634 OF 2012)   J U D G M E N T VINEET SARAN, J. 1. These   appeals   arise   out   of   the   judgment   dated   22.02.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a case in which   two   children   namely;   Aman   Kumar   and   Om,   aged about 10 years and 6 years respectively were kidnapped and 1 murdered.     There   were   three   accused   namely;   Anita   @   Arti (mother   of   the   children)   (A­1);   Ravinder   Singh   @   Kaku   (A­2) and Ranjit Kumar Gupta (A­3).  The Trial Court convicted all the   three   accused   and   sentenced   them   to   death   for   the offence   punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   120B   IPC and   rigorous   imprisonment   for   10   years   and   fine   of Rs.5000/­each for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC. 2. Being   aggrieved   by   the   Trial   Court   order,   the   present appellant   filed   a   criminal   appeal   before   the   High   Court   of Punjab   and   Haryana,   which   got   tagged   along   with   the criminal appeals filed by the other co­accused persons.  3. The   High   Court,  vide  judgment   dated  22.02.2011,   acquitted Anita   @Arti   (A­1)   and   Ranjit   Kumar   Gupta   (A­3)   and   partly allowed the appeal filed by Ravinder Singh @ Kaku (A­2) and while   setting­aside   the   death   penalty,   sentenced   him   to undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   20   years   under   Section 302 IPC.  2 4. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   case   are   dealt   with   in paragraphs   2,3   and   4   of   the   judgment   dated   25.05.2010   of the Trial Court, which are reproduced below: “2.   Tersely   put,   on   24.09.2009,   complainant Rakesh Kumar son of   Khushal Chand, resident of   Nanak   Nagri,   Moga   moved   application   to   the Station   House   Officer   (SHO),   Police   Station   City­ 1.   Moga   regarding   missing   of   his   two   sons namely   Aman   Kumar   and   Om,   aged   about   10 years and 6 years respectively.  He submitted in the   application   that   on   24.09.2009,   both   of   his sons   had   gone   for   tuition   as   usual   near   their house.   Usually, they used to return from tuition at   about   6   p.m.   But   on   that   day,   they   did   not return to their house till 9 p.m.  He (complainant) along with his neighbours searched for them.   It is   further   submitted   that   two   days   prior   to   the occurrence,   his   wife   had   a   dispute   with   Ranjit Kumar Gupta (Accused) and his wife Sanju. And Sanju   threatened   the   complainant   and   his   wife to take care of their children and, therefore, they had   suspicion   that   their   children   might   have been   abducted   by   Ranjit   Kumar   Gupta   and   his wife   Sanju.    On  the  basis  of   such  application  of the complainant, report No. 23 dated 24.09.2009 was   made   in   the   Roznamcha.     The   matter   was entrusted   to   S.I.   Subhash   Chander   for investigation and on the basis of his report, F.I.R under   Sections   364/506/120­B   IPC   was registered   against   Ranjit   Kumar   Gupta   and   his wife Sanju. 3 3.   On   25.09.2009,   in   the   morning,   dead   bodies of   both   the   children   were   found   from   the   paddy field   of   Bhagwan   Singh   son   of   Piara   Singh, resident   of   Purana   Moga,   which   were   handed over   to   their   relatives   for   getting   the   autopsy conducted   from   Civil   Hospital,   Moga.   And Section   302   IPC   was   added.     During investigation,   on   the   basis   of   statements   of Krishan   Lal,   son   of   Shiv   Lal   Bansal,   resident   of Nanak Nagri, Moga and Amarjit Singh, son of Jai Singh, resident of Mehme Wala, Moga, Ravinder Singh   alias   Kaku   and   Anita   alias   Arti   also nominated   as   accused.     The   accused   were arrested   on   27.09.2009.     However,   during investigation,   accused   Sanju   was   found innocent.     After   completion   of   entire investigation, accused Anita alias Arti, Ravinder Singh alias Kaku and Ranjit Kumar Gupta were challaned   to   face   trial   in   this   case   under Sections   302/364/506   read   with   Section   120­B IPC.   And   Sanju,   wife   of   Ranjit   Kumar   Gupta (accused)   was   placed   in   column   No.2   of   report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 4. On   commitment   of   the   case   to   this   Court, charge  under Sections  302/364/120­B IPC was framed   against   accused   Anita   alias   Arti, Ravinder   Singh   alias   Kaku   and   Ranjit   Kumar Gupta,   to   which   they   pleaded   not   guilty   and claimed trial”. 5. The High Court opined that the prosecution had established the   motive   of   the   offence   committed   by   A2,   which   was   his 4 determination   to   eliminate   the   school   going   children   of Rakesh  Kumar  (PW5)  and A1  because  he was  madly  in  love with A1. The High Court further  held  that the  prosecution’s attempt   to   rope   in   A1   in   the   crime   of   murder   was   not successful   as   their   only   witness   against   A1   i.e.   PW10 [Krishan Lal, who accompanied PW5 while searching for the deceased kids] turned hostile. However, against A2 and A3, it was   held   that   the   prosecution   has   partially   established   the last   seen   theory   through   the   testimonies   of   PW6   and   PW7. The High Court further rejected the evidence of PW13 which was in the nature of extra judicial confession of A2 and A3. 6. As far as A2 i.e. the present appellant is concerned, the High Court, while upholding his conviction held that: “As regards the second accused, it is evident that PW12   who   raided   his   house,   arrested   him   on 27.09.2009   and   recovered   the   mobile   phone bearing   sim   card   No.   9781956918.   A   school   bag and   a   rope   also   were   recovered   from   the   field based   on   the   disclosure   statement   given   by   him. DW1 had  been fielded  by A2 to  bat  his  cause. In the face of the credible evidence as to the arrest of A2 by PW12 on 27.09.2009 during the raid of his house,   the   evidence   of   DW1   does   not   seem   to   be trustworthy. The arrest of second accused and the recovery   effected   based   on   his   disclosure 5 statement   lend   corroboration   to   the   case   of   the prosecution as against the second accused. . . At the initial stage the first accused Anita was not at   all   suspected.   Later   on   she   was   arrested   from her   house   on   27.09.2009   and   from   her   custody the   mobile   phone   bearing   sim   cards   No. 9592851851   and   9914505216   were   recovered. The   recovery   of   those   mobile   phones   and   the relevant   call   details   Ex.D41   to   Ex.D44   would support the case of the prosecution that A2 had a close   intimacy   with   A1   which   culminated   in   the unfortunate occurrence. . . As   far   as   the   second   accused   is   concerned,   the motive   part   of   the   case   has   been   established   by the   prosecution.   Through   the   first   limb   of   the   last seen   theory   as   regards   the   second   accused projected   through   PW10   Krishan   Lal   by   the prosecution failed, the prosecution could establish the   second   limb   of   the   last   seen   theory   through PW6   Amarjit   Singh   and   PW7   Gurnaib   Singh.   His arrest   and   recovery   of   the   material   objects   also would   support   the   case   of   the   prosecution   as against   him.   The   failure   to   establish   the   extra judicial   confession   alleged   to   have   been   given   by the second accused to PW13 Goverdhan Lal does not   affect   the   case   of   the   prosecution   as   against him.   It   is   to   be   noted   that   arrest   of   A2   and   the recovery   of   material   objects   from   his   person   and also at his instance were established. . . 6 A2   is   convicted   only   based   on   the   circumstantial evidence   produced   by   the   prosecution.   The infatuation   he   had   with   A1   had   completely blinded   his   sense  of  proportion  and   ultimately he had committed the cruel murder of the children of PW5   Rakesh   Kumar.   The   murder   of   the   children as   such   had   not   been   committed   in   a   diabolic   or monstrous   manner.   Both   the   children   had   been strangulated   to   death   by   A2.   A2   was   just   25/26 years   old   at   the   time   when   he   committed   the crime.   The   crime   was   committed   propelled   by sexual   urge   at   the   young   age   on   account   of infatuation   towards   a   women.   Reformation   is possible during the long years of his imprisonment in jail. Further, if the second accused having spent his prime time in jail comes out after 20 years, he may not be a menace to the society.” 7. Challenging   his   conviction   and   sentence   of   20   years,   the present   appellant   Ravinder   Kumar   @   Kaku   filed   Criminal Appeal   No.   1307   of   2019   @   SLP   (Crl.)   9431   of   2011,   which shall be treated by us as the lead appeal/petition. 8. The   case   of   the   prosecution   herein   has   remained   that   the Trial   Court   and   the   High   Court   have   rightly   convicted   A2 since the prosecution could successfully establish that there was   a   motive   for   the   murder.   It   is   contented   that   the   call details   produced   relating   to   the   phone   used   by   A1   and   A2 have   established   that   they   shared   an   intimate   relationship, 7 which became the root cause of offence committed herein. It is   further   submitted   that   the   last   seen   theory,   the   arrest   of the   accused,   the   recovery   of   material   objects   and   the   call details   produced,   would   conclusively   establish   the   guilt   of the accused persons in conspiring the murder of the children of PW5. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. 10. The   conviction   of   A2   is   based   only   upon   circumstantial evidence.   Hence,   in   order   to   sustain   a   conviction,   it   is imperative   that   the   chain   of   circumstances   is   complete, cogent   and   coherent.   This   court   has   consistently   held   in   a long line of cases  [See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977   SC   1063);   Eradu   and   Ors.   v.   State   of   Hyderabad   (AIR 1956   SC   316);   Earabhadrappa     @   Krishnappa   v.   State   of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors.  (AIR  1985  SC  1224);   Balwinder  Singh   @  Dalbir  Singh  v. State   of   Punjab   (AIR   1987   SC   350);   Ashok   Kumar   Chatterjee v. State  of M.P.  (AIR 1989 SC 1890)]   that  where a case rests squarely   on   circumstantial   evidence,   the   inference   of   guilt 8 can   be   justified   only   when   all   the   incriminating   facts   and circumstances   are   found   to   be   incompatible   with   the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  accused  is  drawn  have  to   be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely   connected   with   the   principal   fact   sought   to   be inferred from those circumstances. In  Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab   (AIR   1954   SC   621) ,   it   was   laid   down   that   where   the case   depends   upon   the   conclusion   drawn   from circumstances,   the   cumulative   effect   of   the   circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring   the   offence   home   beyond   any   reasonable   doubt.   We may   also   make  a   reference   to   a  decision   of  this   Court  in   C. Chenga   Reddy   and   Ors.   v.   State   of   A.P.   (1996)   10   SCC   193 , wherein it has been observed that: “In   a   case   based   on   circumstantial   evidence,   the settled   law   is   that   the   circumstances   from   which the   conclusion   of   guilt   is   drawn   should   be   fully proved   and   such   circumstances   must   be conclusive   in   nature.   Moreover,   all   the circumstances   should   be   complete   and   there should   be   no   gap   left   in   the   chain   of   evidence. Further   the   proved   circumstances   must   be consistent only with the  hypothesis of  the  guilt  of 9 the   accused   and   totally   inconsistent   with   his innocence....” .   [Emphasis supplied] 11. Upon   thorough   application   of   the   above   settled   law   on   the facts   of   the   present   case,   we   hold   that   the   circumstantial evidence   against   the   present   appellant   i.e.   A2   does   not conclusively   establish   the   guilt   of   A2   in   committing   the murder   of   the   deceased   children.   The   last   seen   theory,   the arrest   of   the   accused,   the   recovery   of   material   objects   and the   call   details   produced,   do   not   conclusively   complete   the chain   of   evidence   and   do   not   establish   the   fact   that   A2 committed   the   murder   of   the   children   of   PW5.   Additionally, the   argument   of   the   Respondent   that   the   call   details produced   relating   to   the   phone   used   by   A1   and   A2   have established   that   they   shared   an   intimate   relationship   and that this relationship became the root cause of offence is also unworthy of acceptance.  12. The   High   Court   fell   in   grave   error   when   it   fallaciously   drew dubious inferences from the details of the call records of A1 and   A2   that   were   produced   before   them.   The   High   Court inferred  from  the   call details  of  A2  and  A1  that   they   shared an   abnormally   close   intimate   relation.   The   court   further 10 inferred   from   this,   that   unless   they   had   been   madly   in   love with   each   other,   such   chatting   for   hours   would   not   have taken place. The High Court eventually observed that: “ We have to infer  that the unusual attraction of A2 towards   A1   had   completely   blinded   his   senses, which   ultimately   caused   the   death   of   minor children.   It   is   quite   probable   that   A2   would   have through that the minor children had been a hurdle for his close proximity with A1”    [Emphasis supplied] The above inferences were drawn by the High Court through erroneous   extrapolation   of   the   facts,   and   in   our   considered opinion,   such   conjectures   could   not   have   been   the   ground for conviction of A2. Moreover, the High Court itself observed that   “ there   is   no   direct   evidence   to   establish   that   A1   and   A2 had   developed   illicit   intimacy ”   and   in   spite   of   this observation,   the   court   erroneously   inferred   that   the   murder was   caused   as   an   outcome   of   this   alleged   illicit   intimacy between A1 and A2. 13. When   a   conviction   is   based   solely   on   circumstantial evidence,   such   evidence   and   the   chain   of   circumstances must   be   conclusive   enough   to   sustain   a   conviction.   In   the present   case,   the   learned   counsel   of   the   appellant   has 11 argued that conviction of A2 could not just be upheld solely on the ground that the prosecution has established a motive via  the call  records.  However,  we hold  that  not  only  is such conviction   not   possible   on   the   present   scattered   and incoherent   pieces   of   evidence,   but   that   the   prosecution   has not   even   established   the   motive   of   the   crime   beyond reasonable   doubt.   In   the  present   case,   the   fact   that   A1   and A2   talked   on   call,   only   proves   that   they   shared   a   close relationship.   However,   what   these   records   do   not   prove,   is that the murder was somehow in furtherance of this alleged proximity between A1 and A2. The High Court’s inference in this   regard   was   a   mere   dubious   conclusion   that   was   drawn in   absence   of   any   cogent   or   concrete   evidence.   The   High Court itself based its inferences on mere probability when it held   that   “ It   is   quite   probable   that   A2   would   have   through that   the   minor   children   had   been   a   hurdle   for   his   close proximity with A1 ”. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed to   establish   by   evidence   the   supposed   objective   of   these murders and what was it that was sought to be achieved by such   an   act.   The   court   observed   that   the   act   of   A2   was inspired   by   the   desire   to   “exclusively   possess”   A1.   However, 12 it   seems   improbable   that   A2   would   murder   the   minor children of PW5 and A1 to increase or protect his intimacy to A1 rather than eliminate the husband of A1 himself. Hence, the inference drawn by the High Court from the information of   call   details   presented   before   them   suffers   from   infirmity and   cannot   be   upheld,   especially   in   light   of   the   fact   that there   is   admittedly   no   direct   evidence   to   establish   such alleged intimacy and that the entire conviction of A2 is based on   mere   circumstantial   evidence.   We   cannot   uphold   a conviction which is based upon a probability of infatuation of A2,   which   in   turn   is   based   on   an   alleged   intimacy   between him   and   A1,   which   has   admittedly   not   been   established   by any direct evidence. 14. In   the   context   of   the   Prosecution’s   Last   Seen   Theory,   it   is imperative   to   examine   the   evidence   of   PW6   and   PW7,   since the prosecution claims to have established the theory against A2 on the testimonies of these two witnesses. In essence, the prosecution   tried   to   establish   the   first   limb   of   its   Last   Seen Theory   against   A1   through   PW10,   claiming   that   A2   and   A3 used to visit the house of A1 and hence all three colluded to commit the murder of the minor children. However, the High 13 Court   rightly   rejected   this   limb   of   the   theory   and   held   that since   the   entire   attempt   to   rope   A1   in   as   an   accused   was based on the testimony  of PW10 and he himself had turned hostile and had come up with a self­contradictory version of his   testimony,   no   portion   of   his   evidence   could   be   relied upon. 15. However, where the High Court has erred is that it held that the second limb of the prosecution’s Last Seen Theory stands duly  established against  A2 and  A3 through the evidence of PW6   and   PW7.   PW6   (Amarjit   Singh)   is   the   farm   servant   of PW7   (Gurnaib   Singh)   who   claims   to   have   seen   A2   and   A3 along with the deceased children of PW5. PW6 deposed that though   he   was   present   when   the   police   was   conducting inquest on the dead bodies, he chose not to disclose the fact of   the   presence   of   A2   and   A3   to   the   police.   Rather,   PW6 shared   this   information   with   PW7   and   thereafter   both   of them   proceeded   to   inform   the   police   about   the   presence   of A2   and   A3.   However,   the   High   Court   erred   in   not appreciating   the   numerous   contradictions   and inconsistencies   that   the   evidence   of   PW6   and   PW7   entail. These   contradictions   and   inconsistencies   assume   capital 14 important in light of the fact that the entire conviction of A2 is   based   merely   on   circumstantial   evidence,   and   they   also render   the   evidence   non­conclusive   to   establish   the   guilt   of A2. 16. In   the   context   of   the   abovementioned   contradictions   and inconsistencies,   the   following   must   be   noted:   Firstly,   W6 deposed   that   when   he   saw   A2   in   the   field   with   the   two children,   he   went   ahead   and   made   inquiries   from   him,   to which   A2   responded   that   his   associate   has   gone   to   answer the  call of  nature. PW6  gives no reason in his  deposition as to   why   he   went   ahead   and   asked   such   questions   from   A2. The need and rational of such line of inquiry is missing from his   testimony   and   the   same   appears   to   be   cooked   up. Secondly,   PW6   did   not   immediately   disclose   the   fact   to   the police that he had earlier seen A2 and A3 with the deceased children.   More   importantly,   the   story   of   the   prosecution   is that   the   accused   were   arrested   on   27.09.2009.   However, PW6   said   in   his   testimony   said   that   “ the   accused   were present   in  the   CIA  staff   when   I  visited   there   on   25.09.2009 ”. When the prosecution itself says that the police arrested the accused on 27.09.2009, it is not understood that how could 15 they   have   been   present   in   the   CIA   staff   on   25.09.2009. Moreover, PW7 in his testimony stated that when he reached the  CIA Staff, A2 and A1 were not  present there and he did not ask the police if the accused persons were arrested. Such material   contradictions   regarding   the   arrest   of   the   accused persons   make   it   difficult   to   believe   the   evidence   of   PA6   and PW7.  Thirdly,  PW6 explicitly stated that he and PW7 came to condole the death of the kids to PW5 and that PW5 and PW7 had   previous   relations   with   each   other.   On   the   contrary, PW7   in   his   testimony   explicitly   states   that   he   had   no acquaintance   with   the   complainant   (PW5)   and   that   he   and PW6   did   not   go   to   condole   the   death   of   the   kids   of   PW5. Lastly,   the   testimonies   of   PW6   and   PW7   also   differ   on   the question of when did they reach the police station to report. PW7 deposed that he and PW6 reached the CIA Staff at 6 PM and   remained   there   only   for   2   hours   i.e.   they   left   by   8   PM. However,   contradicting   this,   PW6   clearly   states   that   he reached the CIA Staff along with PW7 at 9 PM. 17. In   a   case   where   the   conviction   is   solely   based   on circumstantial   evidence,   such   inconsistencies   in   the testimonies of the important witnesses cannot be ignored to 16 uphold   the   conviction   of   A2,   especially   in   light   of   the   fact that   the   High   Court   has   already   erred   in   extrapolating   the facts to infer a dubious conclusion regarding the existence of a motive that is rooted in conjectures and probabilities.  18. With respect to the extra judicial confessions, suffice it to say that   the   attempt   of   the   respondent   herein   to   rely   on   that   is untenable   since   the   High   Court   has   taken   note   of   the inconsistences   in   the   evidence   of   PW13   Goverdhan   Lal   and has   rightly   rejected   his   evidence   “ in   toto ”.   We   uphold   the judgement of the High Court to the extent that it rejects the testimony   of   PW13   and   finds   the   theory   of   extra   judicial confession of A2 and A3 to be unnatural. 19. The   last   piece   of   evidence   against   A2   remains   the   alleged recovery   of   the   school   bag   at   the   instance   of   the   disclosure statement   given   by   A2.   However,   similar   to   the   other evidence   against   A2,   this   also   suffers   from   the   same inconsistencies   and   incoherence   that   makes   it   difficult   for the   such   evidence   to   support   the   conviction   of   A2.   In   this context,   it   is   imperative   to   understand   that   there   were   two bags involved in the entire offence, which belonged to the two deceased   children.   The   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent 17 has  contended that  the recovery  of  one of such bags was at the   instance   of   the   disclosure   statement   given   by   A2.   The High   Court   also   has   supported   its   conviction   of   A2   on   this piece of   evidence.  However,  where  the  High   Court  has  erred is   that   it   analysed   this   evidence   in   isolation   with   the   other testimonies.   However,   when   the   claim   of   the   prosecution   is examined   in   the   entire   context   of   the   other   testimonies   and evidence,   it   becomes   apparent   that   even   this   evidence   of Recovery is not free from contradictions and inconsistencies. For   instance,   PW6   categorically   mentions   in   his   deposition that   he   observed   “two   bags”   near   the   dead   bodies   of   the children   when   he   arrived   the   next   day   at   the   place   of   the unfortunate incident. He further said that he saw those two bags   in   court   also.   This   contradiction   is   also   supported   by the   Testimony   of   PW5   i.e.   father   of   the   deceased   children himself,   who   explicitly   states   that   “The   belongings   of   the children   i.e.   clothes,   bags   and   chapels   were   recovered   from the   spot.”   He   further   went   on   to   testify   in   great   detail   that “The bags contained exercise books, books, geometry box etc. I  bought  the   bags  from  the   market. I  identified   both the   bags and belongings on 30.09.2009 in the police station”.  Hence, it 18 is   not   understood   that   when   both   the   bags   were   recovered beside   the   dead   bodies   itself   on   the   day   of   the   inquest   by police, then how could a bag be recovered at the instance of the   disclosure   statement   of   A2.   Moreover,   to   add   to   the inconsistency, PW9 in his testimony states that “ when I had gone   to   my   field,   I   found   dead   bodies   of   two   children   in   my field.   Nothing   else   was   lying   by   their   side. ”   Although   the prosecutions maintains that the second bag was recovered at the instance of A2, the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW12) itself contradicts the stand of the prosecution. PW12 stated in his testimony that “ one school bag of Aman Kumar deceased   containing   books   and   geometry   box   etc.   was   lifted from   the   spot. ”.   As   for   the   second   bag,   PW12   deposed   that “ Thereafter   on   29.09.2009,   accused   Ranjit   Kumar[A3] suffered   disclosure   statement   that   one   school   bag   was   kept concealed   by   him   in   the   fields   of   paddy   along   with   the   rope which   only   he   knew   and   he   could   get   the   same   recovered. ” These   contradictions   and   inconsistencies   in   the   testimonies of   PW6,   PW5,   PW9   and   PW12   make   the   story   of   the prosecution   weak   and   non­conclusive   to   hold   and   establish 19 the   guilt   of   A2,   especially   in   light   of   the   fact   that   there   is virtually   no   direct   evidence   to   link   A2   to   the   commission   of the offence. 20. Lastly,   this   appeal   also   raised   an   important   substantive question   of   law   that   whether   the   call   records   produced   by the prosecution would be admissible under section 65A and 65B   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   given   the   fact   that   the requirement   of   certification   of   electronic   evidence   has   not been   complied   with   as   contemplated   under   the   Act.   The uncertainty   of   whether   Anvar   P.V.   vs   P.K.   Basheer   &   Ors [ (2014) 10 SCC 473]   occupies the filed in this area of law or whether   Shafhi   Mohammad   v.   State   of   Himachal   Pradesh (2018)   2   SCC   801   lays   down   the   correct   law   in   this   regard has   now   been   conclusively   settled   by   this   court   by   a judgement dated 14/07/2020 in   Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs   Kailash   Kushanrao   Gorantyal   [   (2020)   7   SCC   1] wherein the court has held that: “We   may   reiterate,   therefore,   that   the   certificate required   under   Section   65B(4)   is   a   condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra),   and   incorrectly   “clarified”   in   Shafhi 20 Mohammed  (supra).   Oral  evidence in  the  place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.   Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v.   Taylor   (1876)   1   Ch.D   426,   which   has   been followed   in   a   number   of   the   judgments   of   this Court,   can   also   be   applied.   Section   65B(4)   of   the Evidence   Act   clearly   states   that   secondary evidence  is  admissible  only  if  lead  in the  manner stated   and   not   otherwise.   To   hold   otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose. . . Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us hereinabove, is   the   law   declared   by   this   Court   on   Section   65B of   the   Evidence   Act.   The   judgment   in   Tomaso Bruno   (supra),   being   per   incuriam,   does   not   lay down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in SLP (Crl.)   No.   9431   of   2011   reported   as   Shafhi Mohammad   (supra)   and   the   judgment   dated 03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay   down   the   law   correctly   and   are   therefore overruled. . . The   clarification   referred   to   above   is   that   the required   certificate   under   Section   65B(4)   is unnecessary   if   the   original   document   itself   is produced.   This   can   be   done   by   the   owner   of   a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone,   by   stepping   into   the   witness   box   and proving   that   the   concerned   device,   on   which   the original   information   is   first   stored,   is   owned and/or   operated   by   him.   In   cases   where   the “computer”   happens   to   be   a   part   of   a 21 “computer   system”   or   “computer   network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring such   system   or   network   to   the   Court,   then the   only   means   of   providing   information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance   with   Section   65B(1),   together with   the   requisite   certificate   under   Section 65B(4). ” 21. In light of the above, the electronic evidence produced before the   High   Court   should   have   been   in   accordance   with   the statute   and   should   have   complied   with   the   certification requirement,   for   it   to   be   admissible   in   the   court   of   law.   As rightly   stated   above,   Oral   evidence   in   the   place   of   such certificate,   as   is   the   case   in   the   present   matter,   cannot possibly   suffice   as   Section   65B(4)   is   a   mandatory requirement of the law. 22. To   conclude,   the   tripod   stand   of   Motive,   Last   Seen   Theory and Recovery, that supported the conviction of A2 according to   the   High   Court,   is   found   to   be   non­conclusive   and   the evidence   supporting   the   conviction   of   A2   is   marred   with inconsistencies   and   contradictions,   thereby   making   it impossible   to   sustain   a   conviction   solely   on   such circumstantial evidence. 22 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant Ravinder Singh (A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and the impugned   order  of   the   High   Court  is   set   aside   to   the  extent that it convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal   Code.   Hence,   the   conviction   of   A2   is   set   aside. However, the acquittal  of A1 and A3 by  the impugned order is   upheld.   Accordingly,   the   appeals   filed   by   the Respondent/State   against   the   impugned   order   challenging the   acquittal   of   A1   and  A3     i.e.  Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   1308­ 1311 of 2019 are dismissed. Therefore, we direct that a copy of this order be communicated to the relevant jail authorities and the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh (A2) be immediately set at liberty, unless his detention is required in any other case. No order as to costs.          …………………………..J                                                     (UDAY UMESH LALIT)                                                                                                    .……………………..J                 (VINEET SARAN) New Delhi Dated: MAY 4, 2022 23 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-B [For Judgment] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s).1307/2019 RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s) ([HEARD BY:HON'BLE UDAY UMESH LALIT AND HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, JJ.] IA No.24253/2011 - GRANT OF BAIL, IA No.5326/2012 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) WITH Crl.A. No.1308-1311/2019 (II-B) (IA No.157178/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.26736/2012 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 04-05-2022 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment. For Parties Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv. Mr. Karamvir Gogia, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Avadh Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR Mr. Shubham Khanduja, Adv. Mr. Aasheesh K. Paandey, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Reena Devi, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Salik Ram, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and His Lordship. 24 Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and Criminal Appeal Nos.1308-1311 of 2019 are dismissed i n terms of the signed reportable judgment. The operative part of the judgment reads as under: “22. To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last Seen Theory and Recovery, that supported the conviction of A2 according to the High Court, is found to be non-conclusive and the evidence supporting the conviction of A2 is marred with inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making it impossible to sustain a conviction solely on such circumstantial evidence. 23. Accordingly, t he appeal filed by the appellant Ravinder Singh (A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside to the extent that it convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of A2 is set aside. However, the acquittal of A1 and A3 by the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Respondent/State against the impugned order challenging the acquittal of A1 and A3 i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308-1311 of 2019 are dismissed. Therefore, we direct that a copy of this order be communicated to the relevant jail authorities and the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh (A2) be immediately set at liberty, unless his detention is required in any other case.” Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ARJUN BISHT) (PRADEEP KUMAR) (ASHWANI THAKUR) (COURT MASTER (SH) (BRANCH OFFICER) AR-CUM-PS (signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) 25