Failure To Collect Electronic Evidence Such As Call Detail Records In Offences Under Section 354 IPC Can Prove Fatal To Prosecution Case: Telangana High Court

"The prosecution case, therefore, lacks contemporaneous documentary corroboration regarding the alleged complaint made to the college authorities, the proceedings said to have followed the complaint and the alleged termination of the appellant." Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling dated 30th September 2026, acquitted an Assistant Professor accused of outraging the modesty of a student under Section 354 of the IPC, citing critical lapses in the investigation and the failure of the prosecution to collect corroborative electronic evidence.

A bench of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed that while the seriousness of an allegation cannot be undermined, a conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the chain of events through objective, independent, and contemporaneous material.

The prosecution alleged that on 21st November 2011, the appellant, an Assistant Professor, summoned the victim to his cabin under the pretext of discussing internal marks and subsequently outraged her modesty. The victim alleged she reported the incident to college authorities and later lodged a formal complaint with the police after a delay of 48 hours. The trial court had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment, leading to the present appeal.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, it examined whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the suppression of the initial complaint made to college authorities, and the failure of the investigating agency to secure electronic evidence like Call Detail Records (CDRs) warranted an acquittal.

Critical Lapses In Investigation

The court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to collect mobile phone records of the parties was a major lacuna. The victim asserted that the appellant had summoned her to his cabin via a telephone call. However, the Investigating Officer admitted to not seizing the mobile phones or collecting CDRs to verify this claim.

"Failure to collect readily available objective evidence assumes significance, particularly when the oral evidence regarding the surrounding circumstances is itself not free from doubt," the Court noted.

Significance of Unexplained Delays

The court found the 48-hour delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with a further delay in forwarding it to the Magistrate, to be a significant red flag. While acknowledging that delay is not fatal in all cases, the bench observed that it becomes a vital factor when the prosecution fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, especially when the police station was located only five minutes away from the place of occurrence.

"The delay, therefore, becomes a relevant circumstance while assessing the overall reliability of the prosecution version," the Court held.

"Where the evidence adduced by the prosecution gives rise to reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence or the participation of the accused, such doubt necessarily has to go to the benefit of the accused."

Non-Examination of Material Witnesses

The court underscored the importance of examining the Principal of the college, who was the first recipient of the victim's complaint. The failure to examine the Principal or produce the records regarding the alleged termination of the accused deprived the court of crucial corroborative material. This led the court to draw an adverse inference regarding the prosecution's selective presentation of evidence.

Evaluating Testimonial Credibility

The court observed that the testimony of the victim was riddled with material inconsistencies regarding her own role in writing the complaint and the sequence of events immediately following the incident. Inconsistencies between the oral testimony of witnesses and their previous statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC further undermined the credibility of the prosecution's version.

Cumulative Assessment of Evidence

The bench emphasized that while individual discrepancies might be ignored, their cumulative effect creates a reasonable doubt that cannot be overcome by the gravity of the charges. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, necessitating an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

The appeal was consequently allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 354 IPC. The court ordered the immediate cancellation of his bail bonds and the refund of any fine paid.

Date of Decision: 30 September 2026