Evidentiary Value Of Call Records In Criminal Investigations

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction: Evidentiary Value of Call Records

Call Detail Records (CDRs) refer to the electronic data maintained by telecom service providers which contain information such as:

Mobile numbers of caller and receiver

Date, time, and duration of calls

Location of the cell tower through which the call was made or received

CDRs do not record the content of a conversation; they only show metadata. However, they play a vital role in corroborating evidence, establishing presence or absence of an accused at a particular place, proving conspiracy, or connecting co-accused.

In Indian law, the admissibility and evidentiary value of CDRs are governed primarily by:

Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (electronic evidence provisions),

Section 91 of CrPC (production of documents or electronic data), and

Information Technology Act, 2000 (validity of electronic records).

For CDRs to be admissible, a Section 65B(4) certificate is mandatory, certifying authenticity and the manner of production.

2. Case Laws Discussing Evidentiary Value of Call Records

Case 1: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473

Landmark decision on electronic evidence

Facts:
An election petition was filed alleging corrupt practices, supported by digital audio evidence and call records. The trial court admitted these without a Section 65B certificate.

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that:

Any electronic record (including call records) is admissible only if accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4).

Secondary evidence of electronic records (like printed call logs) cannot be admitted without compliance with Section 65B.

Importance:
This judgment overruled earlier lenient views and made it clear that strict compliance with Section 65B is essential for CDRs to be evidentially valid.

Case 2: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 — Parliament Attack Case

Facts:
In the 2001 Parliament attack, CDRs were used to show communication between the accused and terrorists.

Held:
The Supreme Court accepted CDRs even without a Section 65B certificate, treating them as secondary evidence since they were produced by the telecom officer.

Importance:
This case earlier allowed some flexibility in admitting electronic evidence. However, this approach was later overruled by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014).

Nevertheless, Navjot Sandhu demonstrated the investigative importance of call records in tracking movements and associations of suspects.

Case 3: Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801

Facts:
The question was whether electronic evidence could be admitted without a Section 65B certificate when the person producing it could not possibly secure such a certificate.

Held:
The Court held that if the party cannot produce a 65B certificate (for example, in cases of CDRs where only service providers have access), such electronic evidence could still be admitted if relevance and authenticity were otherwise established.

Importance:
This decision created some relaxation, recognizing the practical difficulty for investigating agencies or private parties in obtaining certificates from telecom companies.

Case 4: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1

Facts:
The issue again was the admissibility of electronic records and whether Shafhi Mohammad correctly diluted Anvar P.V..

Held:
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court affirmed Anvar P.V. and overruled Shafhi Mohammad, holding:

The Section 65B certificate is mandatory for all electronic evidence, including CDRs.

If the original device (server or system) is in the control of a third party, the party can compel production of a 65B certificate through the court under Section 91 CrPC.

Importance:
This case finally settled the law. For CDRs to be admissible, the service provider must certify under Section 65B(4) that the data was produced from a lawful record-keeping system.

Case 5: State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471

Facts:
Although predating electronic evidence jurisprudence, the case illustrates the circumstantial importance of corroborative evidence like phone records. The accused’s link with co-accused was proved through corroborative material including telephone calls.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that such corroborative circumstances strengthen the chain of evidence even if they are not direct proof.

Importance:
Even today, CDRs are treated as corroborative evidence—supporting other materials like witness statements, CCTV footage, or confession.

Case 6: Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1 — Nirbhaya Case

Facts:
In the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case, CDRs were produced to establish the presence of the accused together before and after the crime.

Held:
The Court gave high evidentiary value to the CDRs since they were certified under Section 65B, showing that the accused’s phones were located near the place of crime and they were in constant contact.

Importance:
This case illustrated the practical utility of CDRs in establishing a chain of circumstances linking accused persons to the scene and to each other.

Case 7: State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515

Facts:
The accused argued that electronic records (including call data) were inadmissible as no 65B certificate was filed.

Held:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that CDRs are admissible only with proper certification, but observed that such certification could be produced later during the trial stage.

Importance:
This case clarified timing—the certificate need not accompany the chargesheet; it can be produced before the evidence stage.

3. Summary of Legal Position

Aspect	Legal Position
Admissibility	CDRs are electronic records; admissible only under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Mandatory Certificate	Section 65B(4) certificate from telecom provider is compulsory (Anvar, Arjun Panditrao).
Investigative Role	Used to trace movements, link accused, and corroborate testimonies.
Nature of Evidence	Usually corroborative, not substantive proof of guilt by itself.
Challenge to Authenticity	Defense may question manipulation or lack of certification; absence of certificate makes it inadmissible.

4. Conclusion

Call Detail Records have become a powerful investigative tool in modern criminal jurisprudence. Courts in India, through a series of judgments, have emphasized both:

Their evidentiary significance in proving links, presence, or conspiracy; and

The necessity of procedural safeguards, particularly the Section 65B certificate, to ensure reliability and prevent tampering.

Thus, while CDRs can corroborate and strengthen the prosecution’s case, their evidentiary value ultimately depends on strict compliance with legal requirements and authentic certification from telecom service providers.