Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2020
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Mohd.Azad Alam & Others
Versus
State & Others
CRL.A. Nos. 629, 888 & 1132 of 2013 & CRL.A. No. 418 of 2014
Decided on: 01-09-2014
For the Appellants:Bhupinder Mehtani, Rajat Sharma, Ajit Sharma, K. Singhal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Aasha Tiwari, APP. with Inspector Ram Kanwar Dahiya, P.S. Subhash Place, Advocates.
The judgment establishes the guilt of the accused based on evidence from CCTV footage and the consideration of their criminal records.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Armed Dacoity - Section 395, Section 397 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the evidence captured in the CCTV footage, the identification of the accused, and their criminal records. The court found the accused guilty of armed dacoity and sentenced them based on their roles and previous criminal records.
Fact of the Case:
The court found the accused guilty of armed dacoity based on the evidence captured in the CCTV footage and the testimony of witnesses. The accused were identified and their criminal records were considered in the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of armed dacoity and sentenced them based on their roles and previous criminal records.
Issues: Identification of the accused, evidence from CCTV footage, previous criminal records of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence captured in the CCTV footage, the identification of the accused, and their criminal records to establish their guilt and determine the appropriate sentences.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the accused were dismissed, and the sentences imposed were upheld or reduced based on the individual roles and criminal records of the accused.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
Crl.M.B.No.2458/2013 in Crl. Appeal No.629/2013
1. Dismissed as infructuous since the appeals are being heard today and thus the question of suspending the sentence pending hearing of the appeal does not arise.
Crl.A.629/2013, CRL.A.888/2013, CRL.A.1132/2013 & CRL.A.418/2014
1. Co-convict Naeem has not filed any appeal challenging the impugned decision.
2. The irrefutable evidence capturing the movements of Sarfaraj, Shahjad, Mohd.Arif and Mohd.Azad Alam, the four appellants and the fifth co-convict Naeem when they committed an armed dacoity in the shop of Amar Nath Gupta PW-11 is captured in the CCTV footage Ex.PX1 and Ex.PX2 seized by SI Umesh Rana the Investigating Officer. We have seen the two footages captured by the CCTV cameras and stored in the memory of the hard disk of the computer of the CCTV. The two footages have been seized by SI Umesh Rana on being handed over by Amar Nath Gupta. The first seizure is on February 05, 2011 and the seizure memo relatable thereto is Ex.PW-15/B. It relates to the CCTV footage stored in the memory for the period around 9.56 P.M. till 9.58 P.M. on February 04, 2011. The second footage seized vide memo Ex.PW-15/E is when Manoj Gupta s/o Amar Nath Gupta handed over on February 12, 2011 the footage pertaining to what was recorded between 7.33 P.M. to 7.45 P.M. on February 04, 2011.
3. No suggestions have been made either to Amar Nath Gupta PW-11 that there is tampering in the CCTV footage(s) neither is any such suggestion made to SI Umesh Rana.
4. A feeble argument has been made that the second CCTV footage was seized on February 12, 2011 and could not be authentic because the equipment installed was capable of storing CCTV footages for only two days.
5. Making the argument, counsel conceded when confronted with the question by us that if the equipment is switched off, would it not store CCTV footages for two days, in that in said eventuality the footage of any prior duration would remain for the obvious reason the system installed in the shop of PW-11 was such that storage of CCTV footage was continuous. As the cameras captured images beyond 48 hours, the previous footage stored in the hard disk would automatically wash out, to be replaced by the new footage. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that the witnesses of the prosecution who could have thrown light, PW-11 and PW-15 have not been cross-examined on the issue. Thus, the purity of the two footages remains intact.
6. What do the two footages show?
7. The first footage would show that at 19:33:00 hours i.e. at 7.33 P.M. on February 04, 2011, two boys, one wearing a blue shirt and the other wearing a black and white striped full sleeve T-shirt with a hood, have made a recce of the shop of Amar Nath Gupta PW-11 on the ground floor of WZ-621, Gali No.2, Shri Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi from where he was carrying on the business of sale of tobacco and gutka. The two boys are seen hanging around: on the road, casually looking inside. Amar Nath Gupta is at the counter which is ‘L’ shaped and is at the front of the shop. The two boys are seen strolling to and forth outside the shop, on the road, but with gaze fixed inside the shop. Hovering around, the two have vanished at around 19:34:53 hours i.e. at 53 seconds past 7.34 P.M. The two boys have thus remained in the gaze of Amar Nath Gupta for one minute and fifty three seconds. They have been captured in the CCTV footage for said duration.
8. In the second footage, between the period 21:56:41 hours and 21:57:03 hours i.e. for a duration of twenty two seconds, one can see as follows: Amar Nath Gupta is sitting on the chair at the counter. One servant, whose name is Vijay Bahadur is sitting on a stool at an arm’s length distance. A boy wearing a white shirt and blue jeans with a piece of cloth masking his face just below the eyes enters the shop at 21:56:42 hours. The features of this boy above the eyes are clearly discernible. The boy has a knife in his hand. A s
