The Supreme Court recently urged the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure its police officials are properly trained on the procedure to obtain a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the submission of authenticated electronic evidence [William Stephen vs State of Tamil Nadu and anr].A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation after noting that the investigating officer who was in charge of probing a 2010 kidnapping case appeared to be unaware of the procedure to be followed under Section 65B.The Court opined that the police cannot be faulted for not being aware of the procedure laid down in this provision."Before we part with the judgment, we must note here that the PW-19, the Investigating Officer, was not aware of the procedure to be followed for obtaining acertificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. He cannot be blamed as a proper training was not imparted to him. The State Government must ensure that the Police Officers are imparted proper training on this aspect," the bench said.The Court was dealing with two appeals challenging a 2016 Madras High Court judgment which had sentenced two men to life imprisonment for kidnapping a child for ransom.The two appellants before the top court had been accused of kidnapping an eight-year-old child and demanding a ransom of ₹5 lakhs from the parents of the child through a mobile phone call.They were, therefore, charged with the offence under Section 364A (kidnapping for ransom) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The prosecution alleged that the accused had threatened to kill or harm the child if the ransom was not paid through a phone call to the parents.The top court,however, found that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegation that the accused had made the ransom call."The record relating to the call details has been discarded by the High Court as there was no certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The call records could have been the best possible evidence for the prosecution to prove the threats allegedly administered by the accused and the demand of ransom," the Court further noted.
The Court proceeded to partly allow the appealThe conviction for kidnapping was upheld while the conviction for kidnapping for ransom was quashed and set aside.The Court also allowed the release of the appellants from jail after noting that they had undergone the maximum sentence under Section 363 (punishment for kidnapping), IPC for the offence of kidnapping under Section 361."As the appellants are in custody and as they have undergone maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, we direct that they shall be forthwith set at liberty," the bench stated.Senior Advocates Gaurav Agrawal and Anitha Shenoy with advocates Siddhartha Iyer, Rakesh Sharma R, Srishti Agnihotri, and Sanjana Grace Thomas appeared for the appellants.Senior Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy with advocate D Kumanan, Sheikh F Kalia, Deepa S, and Veshal Yyagi appeared for the Tamil Nadu government.
TAGS: Supreme Court Tamil Nadu Police officials Section 65B
