Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 321

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
Shafhi Mohammad – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2302 of 2017
With
Ravinder Singh @ Kaku – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal)No. 9431 of 2011
And
State of Punjab – Petitioner
Versus
Ravinder Singh @ Kaku and Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 9631-9634 of 2012
Decided On : 03-04-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- Dr. Arun Mohan, Sr.Adv.(AC), Rituj Chopra, Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv.(AC), Ketann Paul, Tushar Bhushan, Ms. E. R. Sumathy, Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Manjakini Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- ANS Nadkarni, ASG, Y.P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Zoheb Hussain, Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Salvador S. Rebello, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Ms. Sneha Prabhu Tendulkar, Amogh Prabhu, B.V. Balram Das, Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, Shyam Sundar Rai, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Manjakini Singh, Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
New techniques and devices have evidentiary advantages, subject to the safeguards to be adopted.

Headnote:Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B(4) – Immense value of videography of crime scene during investigation accepted – New techniques and devices have evidentiary advantages, subject to the safeguards to be adopted – By the videography, crucial evidence can be captured and presented in a credible manner – Centrally Driven Plan of Action approved. (Para 9, 10)
       (2009) 8 SCC 539; 1985(Supp) SCC 611; (2010) 4 SCC 329; (2015) 7 SCC 178; (2012) 9 SCC 1; (2005) 11 SCC 600 – Relied upon
       (1965) 2 All ER 464; (1972) 2 All ER 699 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       Use of videography of the scene of crime is the subject matter of consideration herein.
       Finding of the Court:
       Centrally Driven Plan of Action approved.
       Result: Directions given, matter adjourned to 1st August, 2018.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Videography of crime scene is valuable and should be adopted with safeguards and admissibility considerations. (!) (!) - The Court approves a Centrally Driven Plan of Action with phased implementation, milestones, and oversight by a Central Oversight Body (COB). (!) (!) - Phase I–V outlines specific timelines, pilot districts, training, and financing for videography implementation across states and central agencies. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Admissibility of electronic evidence can be relaxed regarding certificate requirements under Section 65B(4) where justice requires, with safeguards on authenticity. (!) - Reference to earlier decisions endorsing use of new techniques (videography, electronic evidence) with safeguards; need for certification and authenticity. (!) - The Committee of Experts and MHA proposed SOPs, training, capacity building, forensic facilities, and funding mechanisms. (!) (!) (!) - Oversight mechanisms include independent reporting, CCTV usage, and periodic reviews by an independent committee. (!)

What is the admissibility and evidentiary framework for videography and electronic evidence in police investigations under the Evidence Act and Cr.P.C.?

How to implement a Centrally Driven Plan of Action for videography in investigation in phased stages with oversight and funding?

What are the mandated institutional mechanisms (COB, Nodal Officers, expert group) and timelines for introducing crime scene videography in India?

ORDER

SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017

Use of videography of the scene of crime is the subject matter of consideration herein. We may note the proceedings in the case on earlier hearings. In order dated 25th April, 2017, it was observed:

"Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Additional Solicitor General, has accordingly put in appearance and made his submissions. He has also submitted a note to the effect that such videograph will indeed help the investigation and such concept is being used in some other advanced countries. The National Institute of Justice which is an agency of U.S. Department of Justice in its report has noted the perceived benefits for using the "Body-Worn Cameras" and also the precautions needed in doing so. The British Transport Police has also found body worn cameras as deterrent against anti-social behaviour and tool to collect evidence. He also referred to judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 wherein reference to use of technology during search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been made. Reference has also been made to Information Technology Act (Amendment) 2006, particularly, Section 79A. In (1976) 2 SCC 17, Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors., this Court noted that new techniques and devices are the order of the day. Audio and video tape technology has emerged as a powerful medium through which a first hand information can be gathered and can be crucial evidence.
Learned Additional Solicitor General has also drawn our attention to the Field Officers' Handbook issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, inter-alia, suggesting that logistic support be provided to the search teams. It further suggests that all recovery and concealment methods should be videographed simultaneously. The said handbook 3 also suggests that permission should be taken under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for pretrial disposal of the contraband. Further, reference has been made to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Bill, 2016 moved by a private member in the Lok Sabha. He submits that in his view such Bill will advance the interests of justice and he will advice the Government of India to consider and oversee adoption for these measures in the Country by investigating agencies.
Mr. A.I. Cheema, learned Amicus points out that Second Proviso to Section 54A of the Cr.P.C. provides for videography of identification process in circumstances specified in the said provision. He also stated that there should be videography of confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He states that such measures can also be adopted for recording dying declarations, identification processes and the post-mortem.
Since, we find that at the ground level these measures have not been fully adopted, we direct the Home Secretary, Government of India to ascertain from different Investigating Agencies to how far such measures can be adopted and what further steps be taken to make use of above technology for effective investigation and crime prevention."

2. Thereafter, in the order dated 12th October, 2017 consideration of the matter was as follows:

"Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General, has filed a note stating that the matter was discussed by the Union Home Secretary with the Chief Secretaries of the States. A decision was taken to constitute a Committee of Experts (COE) to facilitate and prepare a report to formulate a road-map for use of videography in crime investigation and to propose a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The Committee has held its meetings. The response of the States is in support of use of videography. The Central Investigation Agencies have also supported the said concept. However, certain reservations have been expressed in the implementation such as funding, securing the data and storage of the same. It has also been submit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 321

IMPORTANT POINTNew techniques and devices have evidentiary advantages, subject to the safeguards to be adopted.

What is the admissibility and evidentiary framework for videography and electronic evidence in police investigations under the Evidence Act and Cr.P.C.?

How to implement a Centrally Driven Plan of Action for videography in investigation in phased stages with oversight and funding?

What are the mandated institutional mechanisms (COB, Nodal Officers, expert group) and timelines for introducing crime scene videography in India?

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
New techniques and devices have evidentiary advantages, subject to the safeguards to be adopted.