In Brief
The appellants were convicted of abduction and murder of Ramesh Jain, based on circumstantial evidence including disclosure statements, recoveries, and Call Detail Records (CDRs) of mobile phones. The appellants challenged admissibility of CDRs for non-compliance with Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court held that objections to the mode of proof must be raised at trial, not on appeal. Since no objection was taken when CDRs were admitted, the defect could not be raised later. The conviction was upheld on merit. The Court noted the prospective overruling question raised by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer was not determinative as other issues were decided against the accused.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.