Statutes Discussed

• Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act: Court explains that if a party withholds best evidence which could clarify the controversy, an adverse inference can be drawn against them, notwithstanding that the onus of proof does not lie on them [1000562470027] • Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act: Presumption is a permissible inference, not necessary; court has option to draw it based on facts [1000562470027] • Section 65B of the Evidence Act: Discussed in context of electronic evidence admissibility, relevant to non-production of CCTV footage as best evidence [1000562470024]

Case Laws Discussed

No relevant case laws discussed found in the judgment text.

Ratio Decidendi

• Drawing adverse inference under Section 114(g) depends on: nature of fact to be proved and its importance, usual mode of proving it, nature/quality/cogency of withheld evidence, and its accessibility to the party; all factors considered before inference drawn [1000562470027] • Non-production of best evidence like CCTV footage (when accessible and crucial) warrants adverse inference under Section 114(g) against prosecution, as it could disprove accused's alibi and presence at crime scene [1000562470028][1000562470021]

Court Observations

• "As per Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him" [1000562470027] • "The presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference... Drawing of presumption under Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act depends upon the nature of fact required to be proved and its importance in the controversy, the usual mode of proving it; the nature, quality and cogency of the evidence which has not been produced and its accessibility to the party concerned" [1000562470027] • Non-production of CCTV footage, call records, and SIM details "cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence" justifying adverse inference [1000562470026] • Prosecution's failure to produce CCTV footage despite possession and its relevance as "best evidence" leads to adverse inference that it would be unfavorable to them [1000562470028]

Final Conclusion

• In this case, adverse inference drawn against prosecution under Section 114(g) for withholding CCTV footage (best evidence), contributing to gaps in circumstantial chain and acquittal of accused [1000562470028][1000562470041]