Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Sunil - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRR-1601-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-04-2022
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Preponing date of hearing - Section 420 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act - The court discussed the admissibility of CCTV footage as evidence without the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act and its interpretation in light of the judgments in 'Shafhi Mohd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh' and 'Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Versus Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & others'. The court also highlighted the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defense.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 420 IPC for wrongfully withdrawing money from an ATM. The primary argument was the inadmissibility of the CCTV footage without the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no delay in filing the FIR and the test identification parade was not necessary as the CCTV footage was deemed sufficient to prove the petitioner's identity. However, the court held that the CCTV footage was inadmissible without the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the FIR, the necessity of a test identification parade, and the admissibility of the CCTV footage without the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the admissibility of electronic evidence, specifically the CCTV footage, without the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also emphasized that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defense.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges against him.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. -
CRM-6149-2022
This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for preponing the date of hearing in the case i.e. fixed for 30.05.2022.
Notice in the application.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
For the aforementioned reason, the same is allowed and the date of hearing advanced from 30.05.2022 to that of today and the matter is taken up on board today itself.
CRR-1601-2021
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rewari dated 15.11.2021, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rewari dated 14/15.01.2019 (P-2) convicting him under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that complainant-Subedar Sadhu Ram Yadav PW-3 moved an online complaint before the Police as well as before SBI General Manager to the effect that he was serving in the Army. On 28.01.2016 at about 18.00 hrs while he was in journey to rejoin his unit he went to the SBI ATM Counter, Railway Station, Rewari for withdrawing a sum of Rs.3000/-. When he entered the ATM Pin, the ATM machine did not respond. He tried thrice but no response was received. Thereafter, some other persons had also tried to make a withdrawal but the machine did not accept his pin also. Thereafter, he went to another ATM counter (i.e. SBI, Main Branch, Rewari-2) but there also he could not withdraw any amount. However, he meanwhile received a message thereafter regarding the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- on his registered mobile No.8884296341. The complainant subsequently took a mini statement which also showed an ATM withdrawal of Rs.40,000/-. Thereafter, he lodged an FIR on the SBI toll free number and registered a complaint. The complainant thus, requested for the registration of a zero FIR and a request was also made by him to the Bank authorities for providing video footage of the transaction of withdrawal.
3. On the basis of above complaint, the investigation was started and the CCTV footage of the time of the incident was taken. Thereafter, on 21.04.2016, the petitioner who was arrested in case bearing FIR No.16/16 under Section 420 IPC suffered a disclosure statement that on 28.01.2016 also he had withdrawn Rs.40,000/- from ATM Railway Station, Rewari. Thereafter, in pursuance of his disclosure statement he had got recovered Rs.40,000/-. Though in his disclosure statement, the petitioner/convict had also stated that he along with his accomplice Sandeep had committed the present offence but during investigation, it was found that alleged accomplice Sandeep was lodged in District Jail, Jhajjar from 31.01.2016 to 10.02.2016. Thereafter, challan was presented against the appellant in FIR No.29 dated 12.03.2016 at Police Station GRPF, Rewari.
4. Pursuant thereto, charges were framed under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner/convict, to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution to prove its case examined a total 07 witnesses.
The details of the examined witnesses are as under:-
To support its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses.
PW1 ASI Ashok Kumar proved recovery memo Ex.PW1/A and demarcation memo Ex.PW1/B.
PW2 Ashok Kumar, Clerk SBI proved CD Ex.PW2/A, statements of account Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, ATM transaction Ex.P3, Letter Ex.P4, Complaint details and statement Ex.P5 to Ex.P10, statements of account Ex.P11 to Ex.P15.
PW3 Sudhu Ram proved complaint Ex.PW3/A.
PW4 SI Narender Singh proved memo Ex.PW2/A, search memo Ex.PW4/A, disclosure Ex.PW4/B, demarcation Ex.PW1/B, site plan of recovery Ex.PW4/C, recovery memo Ex.PW1/A and after completion of the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was tendered by Inspector/SHO Kamaljeet whose signature he identified, FIR Ex.PW4/D and endorsement Ex,PW4/E.
PW5 HC Balwant Singh proved disclosure statem
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic evidence, and the principle th....
The certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act must accompany the electronic record when it is produced in evidence, and the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which relian....
The main legal point established is that electronic evidence, particularly call details, must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to be admissible in court.
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 use of inadmissible evidence, particularly confessions made to police officers, is grounds for overturning a conviction under criminal law.
A conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion; evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
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
