The court clarifies the standard of proof required for conviction and discusses the implications of CCTV evidence in the context of a suspended sentence.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. We have heard Mr.Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate and Mr.Rohankumar Raval, learned APP for the respective parties.

3. By way of this application under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , applicant – Dashrathbhai Sanabhai seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 302 , 504 and

506(2) of the Indian Penal Code .

4. The present appeal and the application for suspension of sentence arise from the judgment dated 06.02.2025 and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.31 of 2020, whereby, the applicant herein was convicted and sentenced as under:

5. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that, the accused is the real brother of the complainant – Dinesh Solanki. Both the brothers being workers of Siddhi Industries, were resided in the factory compound. Due to nature of the wife of the complainant, the accused was not happy and allegation made to the effect that, she did not take proper care of the applicant which create a grudge in the mind of the accused and on 31.12.2019, in the early morning between 6 to 7, the accused took away the minor son of the complainant and threw him in the water tank of the factory, as a result, the minor was died. On the basis of complaint, the accused was arrested. The investigating officer during the course of investigation, collected the CCTV footage and based on this evidence along with the other material, filed chargesheet against the accused. The learned trial court after appreciation of evidence, relying on the CCTV footage, held guilty the accused for committing the murder of the child.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Yogendra Thakore, appearing on behalf of the applicant while praying for suspension of sentence contended that, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is not sustainable in eye of law, as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Referring to the report of FSL on the aspect of CCTV footage, he submitted that the learned trial court has not properly read the report as the face of the accused was not clearly visible and despite of this, merely relying on the item no.1 and 2 which footages obtained by the I.O. to crosscheck the physical feature of the accused and the child. In such circumstances, it is submitted that, the conviction is based on misreading of the CCTV footages which has caused miscarriage of justice.

7. On the other hand, Mr.Rohankumar Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court and contended that, the issue of misreading of the report on the aspect of CCTV footages cannot be appreciated at this stage and therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offence, no any exceptional circumstances exist.

8. Issue arises as to whether the applicant has made out a case for suspension of sentence?

9. We have carefully examined the case records and considered the submissions made at the bar. It is no doubt true that the entire conviction is based on the CCTV footages. The item no.3 i.e. conclusion clearly shows that a person found wearing the blanket was not visible and therefore, it is the finding of the FSL that, the face of the accused is not matched with the person found in the CCTV footage. In such circumstances, having regard to the report as well as findings