IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that electronic evidence must comply with Section 65B of the Evidence Act for admissibility; failure to do so resulted in the prosecution's case being deemed insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC No.182/2020 on the files of the Special Court of Sessions, Ernakulam Division, challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under Sections302, 376(A) and 201 IPC by that court.

Prosecution Case

2. On 27/11/2019 at about 1.08 am, the accused, a vagabond, with an intention to commit rape and murder of deceased Deepa dragged her to the courtyard of 'Indraprastha hotel' situated in Perumbavoor. Thereafter, when the deceased resisted the attempts of the accused, he took a hoe and hacked on her face causing injuries. Then, the accused laid the victim on the ground, disrobed her and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, the accused again inflicted injuries on the head, face and other parts of the body of the victim using the very same hoe, resulting in inflicting further injuries and the deceased succumbing to her injuries. Later, the accused also damaged a CCTV camera placed in the place of occurrence, which had captured the events. Hence, the prosecution alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 (A)and 201 IPC.

Proceedings before the trial court

3. On appearance of the accused, charges were framed against him under the afore sections, to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, from the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW28 were examined and Exts.P1 to P45 and MO1 to MO11 were marked. Ext.D1 contradiction was also marked from the side of the accused through the prosecution witnesses. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. He stated that on 26/11/2019 at about 3 pm, the deceased approached him seeking money and he did not oblige to the request. He told the deceased that he will handover the money, if she is ready to have sex with him. The deceased consented and they indulged in sexual intercourse and thereafter, he paid Rs.300/-. Later, at 4.30 pm he was taken to the police station and was informed that a crime is going to be registered against him for usage of drugs. He was arrested on 27/11/2019 at about 10 pm and he came to know that the arrest was made in connection with the murder of a lady. He further stated that he was below 18 years of age at that time. Even though an opportunity was granted to the accused to adduce evidence, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Sections 302, 3769(A) and 201 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 302 IPC. In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. The accused was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 376(A) IPC. In case of default, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 201 IPC. In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.

Contentions of the appellant/accused

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Adv. Sai Pooja contended that the prosecution case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove each of the circumstances relied on by it. She argued that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the alleged CCTV visuals recovered from the scene by the investigating officer, but the same has not been proved as required by law. She contended that the DVD’s including Exbt.P25, which allegedly contains the mirror image of the visuals in MO-4 DVR and which has been relied on by the trial court, was not accompanied with an obligatory certificate under Section 65B and hence, is not at