Jisal Rasak VS State Of Kerala - Supreme Today AI
Hi Guest, You are using a Trial - Expire on , Click Here to Subscribe to Upgrade your Plan!

2019 4 KHC 928 ; 2019 4 KLT 159 ; 2019 4 RCR(Cri) 997 ; 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 652

Jisal Rasak - Appellant
The State Of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.MC.No.4148 of 2019 (G)
Decided On : 30-09-2019

Any documentary evidence by way of an “electronic record” under the Indian Evidence Act can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This is what is provided under Sections 59 and 65A of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 59 provides that all facts except the contents of document or “electronic evidence”, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 65A provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Act. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of “electronic records”. Section 65A and Section 65B were introduced into the Evidence Act in 2000 providing special processes for proving copies of extracts of electronic records.

Evidence Act- Section 65B(1) - Any electronic record, which is printed, stored, recorded or copies made on to an optical or magnetic media and produced by a computer will be deemed to be a document only if the conditions set out in Section 65B(1) of the Evidence Act- The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act for furnishing certificate is not always mandatory.

Statement of facts:

The petitioner has been charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 143, 148, 341, 506(ii), 323, 326, 201 and 212 of the IPC-- The footage was retrieved by following the procedure and the same was forwarded to the Cyber Forensic Lab for analysis and a report was obtained. The footage was produced before Court along with the final report by categorizing the same as a material object-The petitioner approached the learned Magistrate and filed an application seeking to obtain copies of-(a) the CCTV footage relied on by the prosecution,(b) the FSL report obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the CCTV footage and-The prosecution vehemently opposed the handing over of the CCTV footage and it was argued that the footage having been produced as a material object, the digital copies of the same cannot be furnished-The learned Magistrate ordered for the issuance of the records, which were requested for, but refused to issue digital copies of the camera footage-This is under challenge.

Finding of the court:

The investigating agency has committed a grave error by producing the CCTV footage as a material object and also in refusing to give a copy of the same to the accused. The accused is entitled to a digital copy of the CCTV footage, which is relied on by the prosecution to prove the charge. That being the case, the order passed by the learned Magistrate will stand set aside.

Result: Allowed

Act Referred :
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.207, S.173(5), S.173
EVIDENCE ACT : S.3, S.65(b), S.65, S.22(a), S.59, S.65(b)(1)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.307, S.120(b), S.143, S.148, S.341, S.506(ii), S.323, S.326, S.201, S.212

Cases Referred:
Anwar P.V. v P.K. Basheer, (2014)10 SCC 473 - Referred
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, Civil Appeal No(s). 2407 of 2018 - Referred
Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 - Referred
Shafhi Mohammed v. State of H.P., (2018) 5 SCC 311 - Referred
Sherin V.John v. State of Kerala, 2018 (3) KHC 725 - Referred
Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 - Referred
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 - Referred
State v. S.J. Choudhury, (1996) 2 SCC 428 - Referred
Tomaso Bruno and Other v. State of U.P., 2015 (7) SCC 178 - Referred
V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 - Referred

Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Sri.V. John Sebastian Ralph, Sri.V. John Thomas, Shri. Ralph Reti John, Shri.Vishnu Chandran Kum. Keerthana Sudev, Sri.E.A. Haris.
For the Respondent : Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, Senior Govt. Pleader.


1. The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in C.P. No.9 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam. He has been charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 143, 148, 341, 506(ii), 323, 326, 201 and 212 of the IPC.

2. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer chanced upon information that the congregation of some of the accused in and around the scene of crime immediately prior to the murder

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas