THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1456 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, in SC.No.25 of 2016 dated 15.03.2018, convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The appellant was convicted for beating the deceased, Swamy, with a boulder on his head, resulting in his death. The said act of the appellant beating the deceased was captured on CCTV camera. On the basis of the said CCTV camera footage, which is Ex.P12 (two CDs), the appellant was identified as the accused. PW.1 was working as a Police Constable in Nallakunta Police Station. He went to the scene of offence, along with another, while he was on patrolling duty. There, they found the deceased in an unconscious state. They also found a stone at the scene. The deceased was taken to the Gandhi Hospital, where he was declared as brought dead. PW.1-Constable lodged Ex.P1-complaint, stating that they found the body of an unidentified person who was aged around 50-55 years. On the basis of the complaint, the Police started the investigation. During the course of the investigation, it was found that a CCTV camera was installed near the Charitha Automobiles showroom. The Inspector of Police collected the footage from the said CCTV camera. In the CCTV footage, according to the prosecution, the appellant was seen beating the deceased on his head with a boulder.

4. PW.2 accompanied PW.1 and states about the dead body being found. Similar evidence is of PWs.3 and 4 that the dead body was found.

5. PW.5 stated that, between 3.00 and 4.00 A.M., while he along with his friend were sitting in front of a showroom and having Tea, they heard a sound, and when they went there, they found the deceased lying on the ground in a pool of blood. The appellant was seen running from the scene. PW.5 has prior acquaintance with the appellant. The Police have also shown the CC TV footage to PW.5 in which he identified the appellant. PW.5, in his cross-examination, stated that he did not state in his statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that he was sitting to have Tea between 3.00 and 4.00 A.M. on 10.08.2015.

6. PW.9 is the Manager of Charitha Automobiles Showroom, where the CCTV footage cameras were installed. He identified the CCTV footage in which a person is seen hitting a sleeping person with a stone. After confirming the death of the sleeping person, the person left the scene.

7. The entire case rests on the CCTV footage, which was transferred and stored on the CDs-Ex.P12.

8. The learned Sessions Judge found that the applicability of the requirement of the certificate, being procedural, can be relaxed by the Court wherever the interest of justice justifies. The said finding of the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v.

State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine 1342

9. The Honourable Supreme Court in the above case held that Section 65(B) (4) certificate is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records.

10. Following the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, once the CCTV footage is excluded from consideration, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant to the crime. Although PW.5 stated that he saw the appellant running from the scene, however, his presence at the scene itself was neither stated to the Police when he was examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. nor before the Magistrate when his statement was recorded under Section 164 of