Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand - Appellant
Versus
Ramai Karua and Others – Respondents
Death Ref. No. 02 of 2022 With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 922 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 923 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 968 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1039 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1223 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1267 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1268 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1276 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1300 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1399 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1519 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1559 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 94 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 222 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 229 of 2023
Decided on : 05-04-2023
CRIMINAL - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 65B - ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS - CCTV FOOTAGE - AUTHENTICATION CERTIFICATE - REQUIREMENTS - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 65B(4) - CERTIFICATE TO BE ISSUED BY A PERSON OCCUPYING A RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL POSITION - TECHNICIANS OF CCTV COMPANY NOT QUALIFIED - CERTIFICATE NOT IN COMPANY'S LETTERHEAD OR BEARING ITS SEAL - INADMISSIBILITY OF CCTV FOOTAGE - CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON CCTV FOOTAGE UNSUSTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case was based on CCTV footage showing the appellants assaulting the deceased in a jail brawl. The footage was transferred to a pen drive and authenticated by two technicians of the CCTV company. The appellants challenged the admissibility of the footage, arguing that the authentication certificate was not issued by a person occupying a responsible official position in the company, as required by Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and that the certificate was not in the company's letterhead or bearing its seal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the authentication certificate was invalid because it was not issued by a person occupying a responsible official position in the company. The court also noted that the certificate was not in the company's letterhead or bearing its seal. The court further held that the CCTV footage was inadmissible because it was not authenticated in accordance with Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. Since the prosecution's case was based solely on the CCTV footage, the court held that the appellants' convictions could not be sustained.
Issues: 1. Whether the authentication certificate was issued by a person occupying a responsible official position in the company, as required by Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act? 2. Whether the CCTV footage was admissible in evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the authentication certificate was invalid because it was not issued by a person occupying a responsible official position in the company. The court noted that the certificate was signed by two technicians of the CCTV company, who were not in a position to issue such a certificate. 2. The court held that the CCTV footage was inadmissible in evidence because it was not authenticated in accordance with Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The court noted that the certificate was not in the company's letterhead or bearing its seal, and that it did not contain the details of the CCTV cameras and the main hard disc.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and set aside the appellants' convictions and sentences.
JUDGMENT :
R. Mukhopadhyay. J.
Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2022 and order of sentence dated 18.08.2022 passed by Sri Rajendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 199/2021, whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 147/148/323/149/307/149/325/149 of the I.P.C. while the appellants Ramai Karua, Gangadhar Khandait, Shyamo Jojo, Sriram Angaria, Gopal Tiriya, Basudeo Mahto, Sharat Gope, Shivshankar Paswan, Jani Ansari, Sanjay Diggi, Ramrai Surin, Arup Kr. Bose, Ajay Mallah, Pinku Purty and Panchanan Patro have been additionally convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/120B of the I.P.C. and all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable u/s 307/149 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 05 years for the offences punishable u/s 325/149 of the I.P.C., R.I. for the 01 year for the offence punishable u/s 323/149 of the I.P.C, R.I. for 01 year for the offence punishable u/s 147 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 02 years for the offence punishable u/s 148 of the I.P.C., while the appellants Ramai Karua, Gangadhar Khandait, Shyamo Jojo, Sriram Angaria, Gopal Tiriya, Basudeo Mahto, Sharat Gope, Shivshankar Paswan, Jani Ansari, Sanjay Diggi, Ramrai Surin, Arup Kr. Bose, Ajay Mallah, Pinku Purty and Panchanan Patro have been sentenced to death which shall mean that they shall be hanged by neck till their death along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 01 year for the offence u/s 302/120B of the I.P.C.
The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Parsudih, Jamshedpur, wherein it has been stated that on 25.06.2019 at about 4:45 P.M. he was telephonically informed by the Jailor that inside the Jail two groups are involved in a fight. At this information he came to the Jail gate and on entering saw 700-800 prisoners in an agitated state and they were searching for the prisoners involved in the brawl. When he reached near the Library of the Jail, he met the Shift In-charge Warden Shri Shailesh Kumar who was coming with an under trial prisoner namely Harish Singh. On seeing Harish Singh the prisoners aimed their anger at him and were intent to inflict bodily injury upon him but due to the prompt action of the Jailor and the informant Harish Singh was safeguarded. On receiving an information from the Jailor that some prisoners have suffered injuries he had gone to the Jail Hospital where on the advice of the Doctor two of the under trial prisoners namely Manoj Kumar Singh and Sumit Singh were sent to MGM, Medical College & Hospital. It was telephonically informed by the driver Chotelal Paswan that Manoj Kumar Singh had expired.
It was informed by the Shift In-charge Warden Sri Shailesh Kumar and Sri Shiv Dutt Sharma that under trial prisoner Harish Singh had gone to the telephone booth and by intending to exert his dominance snatched the telephone from one of the prisoners and started dialing a number. This resulted in a scuffle and one Avinash Kumar Srivastava had suffered cut injuries. Immediately after this occurrence Harish Singh, Avinash Srivastava, Sumit Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh and others became violent and upon entering Ward No. 1 of Sector ‘E’ they committed assault upon a convict Pankaj Dubey. Out of fear of retribution Manoj Singh hid himself in the top floor of Sector Aaruni. When the prisoners and the Warden came to know that Manoj Kumar Singh was hiding 15 prisoners and 04 Wardens started brutally assaulting him with lathis and dandas. On assessing the condition of Manoj Kumar Singh and Sumit Singh to be serious they on the recommendation of the Jail Doctor were sent to MGM, Medical College & Hospital from where at 7:30 to 8:00 P.M. information was rec
The authentication certificate required under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act must be issued by a person occupying a responsible official position in the company that produced the electronic recor....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic records.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
