Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

Error Apparent on the Face of the Record?

D.1 Submissions of Counsel

18. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and for the State of Tamil Nadu. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the following errors are apparent on the face of the record and call for a review of the judgment dismissing the appeal:

a. There is no proof that the phone number through which the ransom calls were allegedly made by the petitioner i.e. the number ending with XXX5961, belongs to the petitioner;

b. That the call detail records show that the above-mentioned number is registered with one individual with residence in Alathur, Palakkad whom the petitioner has no connection with;

c. That the 15-digit IMEI number for the cell phone, allegedly belonging to the petitioner containing the SIM with mobile number ending with XXX5961, mentioned in the seizure memo differs from the IMEI number mentioned in the call detail record;

d. There is no evidence that the number on which the ransom call was allegedly made to PW1 (mother of the deceased), i.e. the number ending with XXX847, belongs to PW1;

e. PW1 has not stated that calls were made to her on 28 July 2009 and the testimony of PW16, the operator of the phone booth through which the call was made, cannot be relied upon; and

f. The certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872[4] for the call detail records was not furnished.

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN — Appellant VS STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent

( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )

Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011

DATE OF DECISION 21-03-2023