Supreme Court Re-affirms Mandatory Section 65-B Certification & Restraint on Reversing Acquittals – A Commentary on Rahil v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) INSC 858

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rahil v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) is a significant addition to Indian criminal jurisprudence on two intertwined fronts: (i) the evidentiary threshold for electronic records under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (read with the Evidence Act, 1872) and (ii) the limited contours within which an appellate court may overturn a trial court’s acquittal.

The case germinated from a 2003 property-related homicide in Delhi. Initially, the trial court convicted only two accused (Suraiya and her brother Fazal) while acquitting Suraiya’s husband (Noor Ahmed) and son (Rahil). The Delhi High Court later reversed the appellants’ acquittal, placing weight on call-detail records (CDRs) and presumptions about their presence at the scene. In appeal, the Supreme Court dismantled that reasoning, declared the CDRs inadmissible for want of a 65-B(4) certificate, criticised speculative inferences, and restored the original acquittal.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• CDRs inadmissible: The Court reiterated that electronic secondary evidence (like CDR print-outs) is inadmissible unless accompanied by a certificate fulfilling Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, aligning with Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar.
• No cogent proof of presence: Even if the CDRs were admissible, a single-tower location only shows approximate area coverage, not the exact site of the accused; hence presence at the crime scene remained unproved.
• Speculative inference rejected: The High Court assumed that, being household members, the appellants “must have” been present when the deceased visited. Such presumption, absent corroborative evidence, is impermissible.
• Section 106 Evidence Act misapplied: Burden never shifted to the accused because prosecution failed to establish foundational facts that were within their “special knowledge”.
• Principles on appellate interference re-emphasised: Acquittal can be reversed only if the trial court’s view is perverse or wholly against evidence; otherwise, the presumption of innocence stands reinforced.
• Outcome: Appeals allowed; convictions of Rahil and Noor Ahmed set aside; their acquittal restored.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of U.P. (2021) 6 SCC 116
   Consolidated the principles limiting appellate interference with acquittals. The Supreme Court applied the same yardstick, holding that the High Court overstepped these limits.
2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 & Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
   Both mandate a 65-B(4) certificate for electronic secondary evidence. The Court treated the requirement as applicable even to older cases, guided by later clarifications in Mohd. Arif (2023).
3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
   Earlier view ­– certificate not compulsory. The Court explained why this stand no longer governs after the larger-bench decision in Khotkar.
4. Tahsildar Singh (1959), Laxman (1974)
   Addressed contradictions and omissions as impeaching credibility; used to discount PW-3’s belated claim of accompanying the deceased.
5. Mulak Raj v. State of Haryana (1996) 7 SCC 308
   Declined to presume presence of all household inmates; cited to rebut the High Court’s inference that the husband/son must have been in the house.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning travels through three logical arcs:

1. Failure to Prove Foundational Facts
   The prosecution could not conclusively establish two key links: (a) that the deceased actually reached Suraiya’s house and (b) that the appellants were inside at that precise time. Without those “primary” facts, Section 106 could not be invoked to call for an explanation from the accused.
2. Evidentiary Deficiency of CDRs
   The call-records lacked the statutory certificate. Objection had been taken in trial, yet the prosecution never cured it. Following Anvar P.V., uncertified electronic secondary evidence cannot be read, irrespective of when the trial occurred.
3. Scepticism toward Single-Tower Location Evidence
   Even on merits, a single tower’s coverage (½–2 miles typically) is too broad to pinpoint presence. The judgment educates lower courts to demand either multi-tower triangulation or supporting evidence before accepting such data as proof of location.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

• Electronic Evidence Compliance Surge: Investigators and prosecutors must institutionalise prompt issuance and filing of 65-B(4) certificates. Any laxity will likely prove fatal.
• Higher Bar for Cell-Tower Based Presence: Mere single-tower CDRs will rarely suffice; forensic cell-site analysis or triangulation may become standard.
• Appellate Discipline Strengthened: High Courts have been reminded that reversing an acquittal demands “perversity” in trial-court findings, not just a different appreciation of evidence.
• Retrospective Application Clarified: The Court’s willingness to apply Anvar P.V. even to pre-2014 trials—and in a non-capital case—foreshadows uniform, retrospective enforceability unless Parliament intervenes.
• Defence Litigation Strategy: Defence counsel are encouraged to raise timely objections to electronic evidence; doing so secures the right to later challenge admissibility.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 65-B Certificate

A written declaration from the person controlling the computer/device, assuring that the electronic copy is accurate and created during ordinary business, signed with particulars. Without it, computer print-outs remain inadmissible.

Cell-Tower Location Data

When a phone makes/receives a call, it connects to the nearest tower. The tower ID logged in CDRs only indicates a rough radius around that tower, not GPS-level accuracy.

“Perverse Finding”

A trial-court conclusion is perverse if no rational person could have reached it on the evidence; mere possibility of another view is not enough.

Section 106, Evidence Act

If a fact is especially within an accused’s knowledge (e.g., contents of a private conversation), he must explain; but this operates only after prosecution shows a foundational chain of circumstances.

Circumstantial Evidence Test

All circumstances must be fully established, form a complete chain, and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, ruling out any reasonable alternative hypothesis.

5. Conclusion

Rahil v. State (NCT of Delhi) crystallises two vital safeguards in criminal trials. First, it cements the non-negotiable requirement of Section 65-B certification—without which electronic artefacts are legal mirages. Second, it reinscribes the doctrine that acquittal enjoys a double presumption of innocence, reversible only by proof of perversity, not by conjecture or convenience. The ruling also demystifies technological evidence, warning courts against the seductive but often misleading precision of cell-tower data. In sum, the judgment realigns investigative practice with statutory mandates and fortifies the fairness of criminal adjudication.