The Supreme Court has highlighted the imperative for proper training of police officials in the State of Tamil Nadu regarding the procedures outlined in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 

The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, made this observation while hearing two appeals challenging a 2016 Madras High Court judgment that sentenced two individuals to life imprisonment for kidnapping a child for ransom.

The bench noted a critical lapse in the knowledge of the investigating officer, PW-19, who was responsible for probing a 2010 kidnapping case. The officer seemed unaware of the prescribed procedure under Section 65B for obtaining a certificate related to authenticated electronic evidence. 

Recognizing the officer's lack of awareness, the court stated that blame cannot be placed solely on the individual, emphasizing the need for proper training on this aspect.

"Before we part with the judgment, we must note here that the Investigating Officer was not aware of the procedure to be followed for obtaining a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. He cannot be blamed as 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 asserted.

The case involved two appellants accused of kidnapping an eight-year-old child and demanding a ransom of ₹5 lakhs from the parents through a mobile phone call, falling under the ambit of Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. 

However, the Supreme Court found a significant flaw in the prosecution's case, as it failed to establish the alleged ransom call made by the accused.

The court underscored the significance of call details, which could have served as crucial evidence, but were discarded by the High Court due to the absence of certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The court acknowledged that the call records could have been the best possible evidence to prove the threats and ransom demand attributed to the accused.

In response to the inadequacy in proving the ransom call, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. While upholding the conviction for kidnapping, the court quashed and set aside the conviction for kidnapping for ransom. 

Furthermore, considering that the appellants had already served the maximum sentence under Section 363 of the IPC for the offense of kidnapping, the court ordered their immediate release.

Case: William Stephen vs State of Tamil Nadu and anr,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 607/2024.

Click to reach/download judgment.