CCTV footage unavailability does not override eyewitness testimony; review petitions lack merits when evidence supports the original ruling.

ORDER

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 The accused in Crime No. 976 of 2024 on the file of the North Paravoor police station filed this Review Petition praying for reviewing the judgment dated 03.11.2025 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 221 of 2025. The above W.P. (Crl.) was filed by the review Petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution of India , for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to preserve the CCTV visuals available near the place of occurrence, the mobile tower location and Call Detail Records (CDR) in respect of the Mobile Phones of the petitioner and the defacto complainant and also for conducting a proper investigation in the above crime.

2. On 03.11.2025, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the CCTV footage infront of the residence of the defacto complainant was not available and also that there is no CCTV Camera near the place of occurrence. It was also reported that, the mobile tower location of the petitioner was not at the place of occurrence. It was in the above context that the W.P.(Crl.) was closed as per the order dated 03.11.2025.

3. According to the review petitioner, no order was passed with regard to the CDR of the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Therefore, he prayed for reviewing the above order dated

03.11.2025.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though there was no CCTV camera functioning near the place of occurrence and the tower location of the petitoner was not near the place of occurrence, there is direct evidence of his presence near the place of occurrence. Since there is eyewitness to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence, the Investigating officer has not collected his CDR. In the light of the above submission, I do not find any grounds to review the judgment dated 03.11.2025.

Accordingly, this Review Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-