Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Ramkumar – Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police Nungambakkam Range – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 17301 of 2016 & Crl. M.P. No. 8287 of 2016
Decided On : 11-08-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Ramaraj.
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Manishankar, Addl. Adv. General.
The use of modern technology for forensic analysis and the relevance of evidence under the Evidence Act in determining the culpability of the suspect during trial.
Headnote:
Identification of Prisoners - Criminal Procedure - Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Section 5, Cr.P.C. Section 54-A - The court discussed the application of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, and the Cr.P.C. Section 54-A in allowing the videographing and photographing of the suspect for forensic comparison with CCTV footage. The court emphasized the use of modern technology and the relevance of evidence under the Evidence Act in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The police sought permission to videograph and photograph the suspect for forensic comparison with CCTV footage in connection with a murder case. The suspect opposed the application, citing violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order directing the suspect to be taken to the place near the crime scene for videographing and photographing. Instead, the court directed the Investigating Officer to take the necessary measurements/photograph/videograph of the suspect at the Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, for forensic analysis.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of videographing and photographing the suspect under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, and the Cr.P.C. Section 54-A, and the potential violation of the suspect's constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the taking of videograph per se will not make the suspect criminally liable, and the evidence and report of the forensic experts would become relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The court also emphasized that the accused is not entitled to these materials at the stage of investigation.
Final Decision: The court set aside certain directions issued by the Magistrate and directed the Investigating Officer to take the necessary measurements/photograph/videograph of the suspect at the Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, for forensic analysis.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai in M.P. No. 2083 of 2016.
2. On 24.06.2016, around 6.40 a.m., one Swathi, who was standing in the Nungambakkam Railway Station, was done to death in connection with which, the Railway Police registered a case. Later, this case was transferred to the file of F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station and investigation is being done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam.
3. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the CCTV camera in a building near the Nungambakkam Railway Station had captured the video footage of a person whom the police suspect to be the assailant. In this connection, the police arrested one Ramkumar on 02.07.2016 and at present, he is in judicial custody. Prior to the arrest of Ramkumar, the police had seized the CCTV footage and had submitted the same to the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (jurisdictional Magistrate), where, the F.I.R. is pending.
4. The police wanted to ascertain as to whether the said Ramkumar is the person who is found in the CCTV footage. Therefore, they sought the opinion of forensic experts, who have advised the police that they need the CCTV footage of Ramkumar for forensic comparison with the available CCTV footage.
5. Under such circumstances, the police filed M.P. No. 2083 of 2016 in Cr. No. 629 of 2016 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, read with Section 54-A, Cr.P.C. for permission from the Court to videograph and photograph of Ramkumar.
6. The learned counsel for Ramkumar entered appearance and strongly opposed the application. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai allowed M.P. No. 2083 of 2016 on 28.07.2016 by a detailed order, aggrieved by which Ramkumar is before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for Ramkumar vehemently contended that when there are so many eye witnesses in the case, it is not necessary for the police to take videograph of Ramkumar and that it will be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the order of the Magistrate directing that Ramkumar should be taken to the place near Nungambakkam Railway Station and videographed, is against law. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 2 SCC 357 and contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
8. Per contra, Mr. C. Manishankar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State fairly conceded that, that portion of the impugned order directing Ramkumar to be taken to the place near Nungambakkam Railway Station and videographed, is not sustainable and prayed for modification of the impugned order.
9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
10. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for Ramkumar does not have a material bearing on the facts of this case, because, in the said case before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the taking of voice samples from an accused is constitutionally valid. There was a conflict of view between two learned Judges on this aspect and hence, the matter has been referred before a Bench of 3 Judges.
11. Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 reads thus:
5. Power of Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed:
If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to the effect, and in that case, the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be t
