Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Obscene Calls Case, Modifies Sentence: Union of India vs. Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 April 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 311

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can a naval officer be held guilty of making obscene calls to the wives of other officers? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a Commander in the Indian Navy. This case revolves around allegations that the officer made sexually explicit calls to the wives of three fellow officers. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the legal arguments to determine if the officer was indeed guilty and whether the punishment was justified. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice A.K. Sikri authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The respondent, Commander Ravindra V. Desai, was commissioned into the Indian Navy on January 1, 1998. By January 16, 2011, he had risen to the rank of Commander. At the time, he was posted as the Executive Officer of INS Mahish at Port Blair, Andaman Island, from May 2010 to June 2011. In June 2011, he was transferred to INS Viraat as Commander Operations. He left for Mumbai with his family on June 15, 2011, and reported for duty at INS Viraat in Kochi on June 29, 2011.

During his posting at Port Blair, he had purchased two mobile SIM cards: one from BSNL (9476045470) for himself, and another from Vodafone (9564784782) for his wife. Upon reaching Mumbai on June 19, 2011, he bought two new Idea SIM cards (8108770020 for himself and 8108770030 for his wife). On July 1, 2011, he was questioned about mobile number 9564784782 after sexually explicit calls were made from that number to the wives of other naval officers. He claimed that this SIM card was with his wife and had been lost. A One Man Inquiry (OMI) was ordered on January 5, 2012, and a charge sheet was issued on September 5, 2012. Ten charges were framed against him, leading to a Court Martial.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Court Martial found Cdr. Desai guilty on all ten charges and sentenced him to dismissal from naval service and forfeiture of 24 months of seniority. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the respondent appealed to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The AFT decided to record evidence on some charges and set aside the guilty finding on three charges (8th, 9th, and 10th) due to misjoinder. However, the AFT upheld the guilty finding on the first seven charges. The AFT modified the punishment, setting aside the dismissal from service and imposing only the forfeiture of 24 months of seniority. Both parties, feeling aggrieved, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The charges against the respondent were framed under the following provisions:

• Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957: This section deals with acts prejudicial to good order and naval discipline.
• Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses the offense of insulting the modesty of a woman.
• Sections 58, 74, and 48(c) of the Navy Act, 1957: These sections pertain to various disciplinary offenses within the Navy.

The core of the case involves the intersection of naval discipline and criminal law, specifically addressing the misuse of technology to harass and offend. The legal framework ensures that naval personnel are held to high standards of conduct, both on and off duty.

Arguments

Arguments of the Union of India (Appellants):

• The prosecution argued that Cdr. Desai possessed Vodafone Cell Phone No. 9564784782 at the time the obscene calls were made.
• They presented evidence that obscene calls were made to the landline numbers of the three ladies on the specified dates.
• The prosecution established that these calls originated from Mobile No. 9564784782, which was registered in the name of the respondent.
• The prosecution submitted Call Data Records (CDRs) and witness testimonies to prove the respondent’s involvement.
• They argued that the AFT was correct in upholding the conviction on the first seven charges and that the punishment of dismissal was appropriate.

Arguments of Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai (Respondent):

• The respondent admitted to owning the Vodafone SIM card (9564784782) but claimed it was with his wife and had been lost.
• He stated that he had purchased new Idea SIM cards on June 19, 2011, and had stopped using the Vodafone number.
• He argued that the Call Data Records (CDRs) were unreliable and contained discrepancies.
• He contended that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• He argued that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charges.

The arguments centered around the reliability of the evidence, particularly the CDRs, and whether the respondent’s explanation of the lost SIM card was credible. The prosecution relied on the CDRs and witness testimonies to establish the respondent’s guilt, while the respondent challenged the authenticity and reliability of the evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was correct in upholding the conviction of the respondent on the first seven charges.
2. Whether the AFT was justified in setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service and modifying it to forfeiture of 24 months of seniority.
3. Whether the Call Data Records (CDRs) were reliable and admissible as evidence.
4. Whether the respondent’s explanation regarding the loss of the SIM card was credible.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sonu alias Amar v. State of Haryana [2017] 8 SCC 570: This case was cited to establish that objections regarding the mode of proof of electronic records must be raised during the trial and not at the appellate stage. The Court held that defects in the mode of proof can be cured if an objection is raised in time.
• United Planters Association of Southern India v. K.G. Sangameswaran and another [1997] 4 SCC 741: This case was mentioned to argue that the powers of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under Section 17 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, are similar to those of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. However, the Court did not delve into this comparison as the respondent did not question the powers of the AFT in this case.
• Shafhi Mohammad. V. State of Himachal Pradesh [2018] 2 SCC 801: This case was deemed inapplicable to the facts of the present case, as the Court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the respondent’s guilt.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957: This provision deals with acts prejudicial to good order and naval discipline.
• Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This provision addresses the offense of insulting the modesty of a woman.
• Sections 58, 74, and 48(c) of the Navy Act, 1957: These sections pertain to various disciplinary offenses within the Navy.
• Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This provision deals with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. The court discussed the requirement of a certificate under this section for the admissibility of CDRs.
• Section 17 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: This section outlines the powers of the AFT, including the power to order the production of documents and receive evidence.
• Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: These sections deal with appeals to the Supreme Court from the decisions of the AFT.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the conviction and the modified sentence given by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The Court found that the evidence, including the Call Data Records (CDRs) and witness testimonies, sufficiently proved that Cdr. Desai had made the obscene calls. The Court also held that the AFT’s decision to modify the sentence was justified, considering the circumstances of the case.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sonu alias Amar v. State of Haryana [2017] 8 SCC 570*: The Court followed this authority to determine that the objection to the mode of proof of electronic evidence must be raised at the time of marking the document as an exhibit.
• United Planters Association of Southern India v. K.G. Sangameswaran and another [1997] 4 SCC 741*: The Court mentioned this case to argue that the powers of the AFT are similar to those of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, but did not delve into this issue.
• Shafhi Mohammad. V. State of Himachal Pradesh [2018] 2 SCC 801*: The Court found that this case was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
• Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957: The Court noted that the charges against the respondent were framed under this section.
• Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The Court noted that the charges against the respondent were framed under this section.
• Sections 58, 74, and 48(c) of the Navy Act, 1957: The Court noted that the charges against the respondent were framed under these sections.
• Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court analyzed the requirements under this provision for the admissibility of electronic records.
• Section 17 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: The Court mentioned the powers of the AFT under this section to summon records and receive evidence.
• Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: The Court referred to these sections to define the scope of appeals to the Supreme Court from the AFT.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Credibility of Evidence: The Court found the Call Data Records (CDRs) and the witness testimonies to be credible and reliable, despite minor discrepancies that were adequately explained. The testimony of Cdr. Arjun Kumar, who received calls from the respondent’s mobile number, was deemed particularly credible.
• Inconsistent Statements: The Court noted that the respondent provided inconsistent explanations about the loss of the SIM card, which undermined his defense. The shifting versions of events, from throwing the SIM away to it being lost, weakened his credibility.
• Logical Inferences: The Court drew logical inferences from the evidence, such as the fact that the mobile phone was used in both Mumbai and Kochi on the same day, which directly contradicted the respondent’s claim that the SIM card was lost.
• Curable Defects: The Court held that the technical defect in the initial CDR (Exhibit T-2) was a curable defect, which was rectified by the subsequent submission of the CDR (Exhibit T-1) with the required certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Limited Appellate Scope: The Court emphasized that its role in appeal is limited to points of law of general public importance and that it should not re-evaluate the entire evidence unless the findings of the lower authorities are perverse.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual evidence presented, particularly the CDRs and the witness testimonies. While legal principles were considered, the factual inconsistencies in the respondent’s defense played a significant role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the overwhelming evidence against the respondent. The Court found that the CDRs were reliable, the witness testimonies were credible, and the respondent’s explanations were inconsistent and illogical. The final decision was reached by weighing all the evidence and applying the relevant legal provisions.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The respondent possessed the mobile phone from which the obscene calls were made.
• The CDRs and witness testimonies confirmed that the calls were made to the landline numbers of the victims.
• The respondent’s explanation about the lost SIM card was inconsistent and not credible.
• The technical defects in the initial CDR were curable and were rectified by the subsequent submission of the CDR with the required certificate.
• The AFT’s decision to modify the sentence was justified, considering the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court did not have a dissenting opinion in this case.

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to give satisfactory proof to prove that when the offending calls in question were made, the Cell Phone with Mobile No. 9564784782 was with the respondent.”

“It is clear from the judgments referred to supra that an objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit and not later.”

“We have not found any such infirmity at all.”

Key Takeaways

• Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for the admissibility of electronic records.
• Credibility of Testimony: The Court emphasized the importance of consistent and credible witness testimonies in proving criminal charges.
• Inferences from Evidence: The judgment highlights that courts can draw logical inferences from the evidence presented to arrive at a conclusion.
• Disciplinary Proceedings in Armed Forces: The case underscores the strict disciplinary standards expected of personnel in the armed forces and the consequences of misconduct.
• Appellate Review: The judgment clarifies the limited scope of appellate review by the Supreme Court, particularly in cases where the lower authorities have made findings of fact.

The judgment may impact future cases involving electronic evidence, particularly in the context of disciplinary proceedings in the armed forces. It emphasizes the need for consistency and credibility in witness testimonies and the importance of adhering to the procedures for the admissibility of electronic records. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court’s role in appeals is primarily to address points of law of general public importance.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent be reinstated in service within two weeks from the date of the order. However, he would not be entitled to any salary for the period from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving electronic evidence, especially Call Data Records (CDRs), the procedures outlined in Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be strictly followed. The court also established that inconsistent statements and implausible explanations by the accused can undermine their defense. The court also reiterated the limited scope of appellate review by the Supreme Court, particularly in cases where the lower authorities have made findings of fact and that it should not re-evaluate the entire evidence unless the findings of the authorities below are perverse. This case does not introduce a new position of law, but it reinforces existing principles related to evidence, credibility, and appellate review.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai for making obscene calls to the wives of other naval officers. The Court found that the evidence, including Call Data Records and witness testimonies, sufficiently proved his guilt. The Court also affirmed the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to modify the sentence, setting aside the dismissal from service and imposing only the forfeiture of 24 months of seniority. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the procedures for the admissibility of electronic evidence and the need for consistency and credibility in witness testimonies.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Armed Forces Tribunal

Child Category: Evidence Act

Child Category: Section 77, Navy Act, 1957

Child Category: Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Navy Act, 1957

Child Category: Section 77, Navy Act, 1957

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case?

A: The main issue was whether a naval officer made sexually explicit calls to the wives of other officers using his mobile phone.

Q: What evidence did the court rely on?

A: The court relied on Call Data Records (CDRs) and witness testimonies.

Q: What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai but modified the sentence, setting aside the dismissal from service and imposing only the forfeiture of 24 months of seniority.

Q: What is the significance of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in this case?

A: Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the procedures outlined in this section for the admissibility of CDRs.

Q: What was the respondent’s defense?

A: The respondent claimed that the SIM card used to make the calls was lost and that he did not make the calls.

Q: Why did the court reject the respondent’s defense?

A: The court rejected the respondent’s defense because his explanations were inconsistent and not credible, and the evidence against him was overwhelming.

Q: What is the ratio decidendi of this case?

A: The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving electronic evidence, especially Call Data Records (CDRs), the procedures outlined in Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be strictly followed. The court also established that inconsistent statements and implausible explanations by the accused can undermine their defense.

Q: What is the scope of appellate review by the Supreme Court in this case?

A: The Supreme Court emphasized that its role in appeal is limited to points of law of general public importance and that it should not re-evaluate the entire evidence unless the findings of the lower authorities are perverse.

Q: What directions were given by the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court directed that the respondent be reinstated in service within two weeks from the date of the order. However, he would not be entitled to any salary for the period from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement.