Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can convict accused based on call detail records and location data of the mobile numbers used by accused?

 The call detail records further amplify the incriminating previous conduct of A1 on the date of incident. The records reveal that A1 was in constant touch with A2, A3 and A5 before the incident. Further, A3, A4 and A5 were in constant touch with each other. The prosecution has relied upon a chart prepared on the basis of the call detail records of the accused persons and it indicates that all the accused persons were in contact with each other. Even without this chart, the call records are quite clear. To add to it, the location data of the mobile numbers used by the accused persons reveals that all the accused persons were present around the restaurant at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the location of A3 to A6 was also traceable at the same spot where the deceased was found in the Honda Accord car at around 12:05 AM after the incident. In such circumstances, the courts have drawn a reasonable inference that the accused persons were acting in a coordinated manner and had an overwhelming nexus with the offence. 

{Para 17}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No(s). 3866 of 2025

Piyush Shyamdasani  Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 

Decided on July 20, 2026

Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1357. Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can convict the accused if Mobile numbers relied upon by the prosecution were not in the name of the accused persons?

 The appellants herein seek to question the findings on the ground that the mobile numbers reflected in the call detail records did not belong to the accused persons. This, in fact, is another incriminating circumstance because the numbers did not belong to the accused persons, but they were found running in the mobile devices recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused persons. Thus, they were using fake numbers to conceal their identities and to evade surveillance. Notably, A1 was admittedly using two numbers - one registered in his own name and one in the name of his employee (a worker in his factory). Both the numbers were mentioned by him in his original complaint after the incident. The number used by A4 was found running in the mobile phone recovered from him, and the number used by A5 was installed in his phone, which was left by him at his home when he fled away after the incident. When called by the investigators, the call was picked up by the mother of A5 and she disclosed that it was used by A5 only. Again, no rebuttal has been advanced to dispute these facts. {Para 19}

20. The call details reveal that the accused persons were in constant touch with each other using these numbers, irrespective of the persons in whose names the numbers were officially registered. The evidence on record has indicated sufficient nexus between the numbers reflected in the call detail records and the accused persons. If there was any discrepancy in this evidence, the accused persons could have led counter evidence to that effect. However, they failed to rebut this crucial technical evidence. The Court cannot set aside consistent evidentiary findings on bare assertions, without any cogent evidence to support the assertions.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No(s). 3866 of 2025

Piyush Shyamdasani  Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 

Decided on July 20, 2026

Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1357

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused with the aid of S 34 of IPC if the court has framed charge against accused U/S 149 of IPC?

 In fact, the law on this point has continuously been delved into and reiterated by this Court from time to time. A three Judge

Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 204., held that:

“8. It is true that there is substantial difference between the two

sections but as observed by Lord Sumner in Barendra Kumar

Ghosh v. Emperor I.L.R. 52 Cal. 197, they also to some extent

overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each

case whether the charge under section 149 overlaps the ground

covered by section 34. If the common object which is the subject matter of the charge under section 149 does not necessarily

involve a common intention, then the substitution of section 34 for section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not therefore to be permitted.

But if the facts to be proved and the evidence to be

adduced with reference to the charge under section 149

would be the same if the charge were under section 34,

then the failure to charge the accused under section 34

could not result in any prejudice and in such cases the

substitution of section 34 for section 149 must be held to

be a formal matter.”

(emphasis supplied)

20. The above extracted position of law was further concretised in

Willie (William) Slaney v. State of MP  AIR 1956 SC 116, ¶ 49. and by the majority in Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 SCC 266, ¶ 14.. The permissibility of convicting an accused individually under a simplicitor provision after group conviction

with the aid of Section 149 of IPC fails, was further explored in

Atmaram Zingaraji v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 7 SCC 41., wherein this Court

held that:

“4. The next question that falls for our determination is whether,

after having affirmed the acquittal of all others, the High Court

could convict the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. (simpliciter).

The charges framed against the accused (quoted earlier) and the

evidence adduced by the prosecution to bring them home clearly

indicate that according to its case, the nine persons arraigned

before the trial Court and,  none others, either named or

unnamed (totalling minimum five or more persons) formed

the unlawful assembly. Consequent upon the acquittal of the other

eight the appellant could not be convicted with the aid of Section

149, I.P.C., more particularly, in view of the concurrent findings of

the learned Courts below that the other eight persons were not in

any way involved with the offences in question.

5. The same principle will apply when persons are tried with the

aid of Section 34, I.P.C. In the case of Krishna v. State of

Maharashtra [1964]1SCR678 , a four Judge Bench of this Court

has laid down that when four accused persons are tried on a

specific accusation that only they committed a murder in

furtherance of their common intention and three of them are

acquitted, the fourth accused cannot be convicted with the aid of

Section 34, I.P.C. for the effect of law would be that those who

were with him did not conjointly act with the fourth accused in committing the murder.

6. In either of the above situations therefore the sole convict can

be convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. (simpliciter) only on proof of the fact that his individual act caused the death of the victim. To put it differently, he would be liable for his own act only.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38 of 2011

Rohtas Vs Vs  State of Haryana 

Author: Surya Kant, J:

Dated: 10.12.2020

Print Page

Important Notes on Indian Penal Code

1) Notes on S 34 and S149 IPC- Principle of constructive liability

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-s-34-and-s-149-ipc-principle.html

2) Notes on offence of Forgery

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-forgery.html

3) Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-mischief-and.html

4) Notes on offence of receiving of stolen property

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-receiving-of-stolen.html

5)Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

Print Page