Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from the judgment and order dated 17.06.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 240 of 2014, convicting the appellants for murder, criminal conspiracy, extortion, and Arms Act offences. The prosecution case, based on the first information report lodged by Shankar Mohanlal Bhatiya, was that on 26.04.2014 and 27.04.2014, the informant received threatening phone calls and text messages demanding Rs 30,00,000 ransom from unknown mobile numbers. The deceased, Jitendra Mohanlal Bhatiya, was shot dead in his shop, Mohan Trunk Depot, on 27.04.2014, and the assailant fled towards Laxminarayan Temple. Investigation revealed that appellant Pradeep had made the ransom calls, had illicit relations with Divya, the wife of the deceased, and that the two had conspired to murder Jitendra. Pradeep allegedly obtained a country-made pistol from the third accused, Vikram Berad, and executed the murder. The trial court convicted Pradeep under Sections 302, 120-B, 387 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act, 1959, sentencing him to life imprisonment on the murder and conspiracy counts. Divya was convicted under Sections 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and three years respectively. The third accused was convicted under Section 5 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, but his appeal abated after his death. The appellants challenged the convictions on several grounds. The counsel for Pradeep argued that thirteen prosecution witnesses did not support the case and that the trial court ignored vital admissions in cross-examination. He contended that seizure of mobile handsets from the appellants was doubtful, and that the call detail records and subscriber detail records produced as electronic evidence were inadmissible for want of a valid certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. According to him, the certificates were obtained as a mere formality, without recording hash values, IP addresses, or last digits of the mobile handsets. He also pointed out that the SIM cards seized from Pradeep were not in his name, no transcript of the recorded call between the cousin of the deceased and Pradeep was verified by the Forensic Science Laboratory, and no screenshots of the alleged messages were produced. Further, he challenged the recovery of the pistol and cash on 1st May, arguing that the panchnamas did not mention sealing with wax seals, the memorandum did not give the exact location of the pistol, and the description of the house differed in the panchnamas. He questioned why clothes and a live bullet were seized on 6.5.2014 when Pradeep was arrested on 1st May, suggesting planting of evidence. The excerpt does not contain the final High Court analysis or operative directions. It records that the appeals were heard together, reserved on 3 July 2025, and pronounced on 4 September 2025. The legal issues focused on the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the integrity of the recovery evidence, and the sufficiency of proof for the offences of murder, conspiracy, and extortion.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Prosecution case was that accused shot deceased in chest over non-payment of Rs 30,00,000 ransom after issuing threats and messages to deceased's brother - Trial court convicted Pradeep under Section 302 and sentenced life imprisonment; appellate court considered challenges to eyewitness and recovery evidence (Paras 5-9). B) Criminal Conspiracy - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Accused wife and alleged lover had illicit relations and conspired to kill husband; accused obtained country-made pistol from co-accused and executed murder - Trial court convicted both under Section 120-B (Paras 8-9). C) Arms Law - Unauthorized Possession and Use - Sections 3 and 5 read with Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 - Accused Pradeep was convicted for possession and use of a country-made pistol; third accused was convicted for selling or transferring it - Recovery evidence was challenged as doubtful and unsealed (Paras 3, 11). D) Evidence Law - Electronic Records - Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Admissibility of call detail records (CDR) and subscriber detail records (SDR) requires valid certificate complying with all clauses, including hash value and IP address details - Appellant argued certificates were formalities, without proper format, and CDR could not be relied upon (Paras 10-11). E) Criminal Procedure - Sentencing - Sections 201, 387 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Accused Divya was convicted under Section 201 for causing disappearance of evidence and under Section 120-B; appellant Pradeep was also convicted under Section 387 for extortion by putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt to obtain ransom - Sentences imposed by trial court are under challenge (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether CDR/SDR electronic evidence is admissible without valid Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act certificate; whether seizure and recovery of mobile handsets, SIM cards, pistol, and cartridges were proved beyond reasonable doubt; whether the trial court erred in finding conspiracy under Section 120-B between Pradeep and Divya; whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence
Final Decision
The provided excerpt does not include the final High Court decision on the appeals. It records that the appeals were heard together and the judgment was pronounced on 4 September 2025. The trial court had convicted Pradeep under Sections 302, 120-B, 387 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Divya under Sections 120-B and 201 Indian Penal Code. The third accused Vikram's appeal abated due to his death.
Law Points
- Electronic evidence under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act requires valid certificate
- recovery of weapon must be proved with sealing and exact location
- conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC requires proof of agreement
- conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof of murder beyond reasonable doubt
- Arms Act requires proof of unauthorized possession
