1. Quashing of proceedings for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC by removing CCTV DVR. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 356
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
N. Tukaramji, J.
Suryapagae Srikanth and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor and another - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.9032 OF 2024
Decided On : 05-05-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
For the Petitioner: Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
Section 201 IPC requires proof of destroying or concealing evidence to screen an offender. Temporary removal of an item subsequently recovered intact, especially when the prosecution relies on inadmissible police confessions without evidence of tampering, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 201 and 34 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26 and 27 - Quashment of proceedings - Causing disappearance of evidence - Intention to screen offender - Admissibility of confessional statements.
(B) To attract Section 201 IPC, the prosecution must establish: (i) the commission of an offence; (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the accused regarding such offence; and (iii) causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. (Para 19)
(C) Mere temporary removal of evidence, which is subsequently recovered intact without any tampering or destruction, does not constitute "causing disappearance of evidence" under Section 201 IPC. (Paras 20, 22)
(D) Confessional statements made to police are barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is inapplicable if the recovery of the object was independent of or prior to the alleged confessional statement. (Para 22) (E) Criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were subordinate police personnel to another accused officer, were alleged to have removed a CCTV DVR from the residence of the said officer on his instructions after allegations of sexual assault and criminal intimidation against him surfaced. The DVR was subsequently produced before the police and seized under panchanama. There was no allegation of tampering with or destruction of the data contained therein. The implication of the petitioners was primarily based on alleged confessional statements recorded during the investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the DVR was recovered intact and there was no independent material to show that the petitioners attempted to destroy, conceal, or falsify evidence. The implication relied upon inadmissible confessional statements without independent corroboration.
Issues: Whether the act of temporarily removing a DVR, which was subsequently recovered intact, satisfies the essential ingredients of Section 201 IPC to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for an offence under Section 201 IPC, there must be clear and cogent evidence of destruction or concealment of evidence coupled with the intention to screen the offender. Temporary removal followed by voluntary production, without tampering, does not constitute the disappearance of evidence. Furthermore,reliance on confessional statements made to police is legally untenable under the Evidence Act when the recovery was independent of such statements.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC are hereby quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
ORDER :
N. Tukaramji, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 65 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 376(2), 307, 448, 365 of the IPC and 201 IPC, and under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. Heard Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State.
4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused No. 1, by misusing his official position, committed grave offences against the de facto complainant, including sexual assault and criminal intimidation. During the course of investigation, accused No. 1 was arrested on 10.07.2022, and certain material objects, including his clothes and service revolver, were seized. It is further alleged that the CCTV DVR from the apartment of accused No. 1, namely Padmavathi Nilayam Apartment, was found missing.
4.2. Subsequently, on 06.08.2022, the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 produced the said DVR before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram, and the same was seized. According to the prosecution, accused No. 1 instructed the petitioners, through a WhatsApp message, to remove the DVR from his apartment on 10.07.2022, pursuant to which they removed and retained it. On the basis of the alleged confessional statement, the petitioners were implicated in the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.
4.3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 3. The case was initially taken on file as P.R.C. No. 65 of 2022, and was subsequently committed and numbered as S.C. No. 622 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that their implication in the present case for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC is wholly untenable, both on facts and in law. It is their specific case that the mere act of removing the CCTV DVR from the apartment of accused No. 1, even if assumed to be true, was done only on his instructions and does not, by itself, constitute an offence of causing disappearance of evidence.
5.2. The petitioners further submit that the CCTV footage contained in the said DVR is not incriminating against accused No. 1, and therefore, the essential ingredient of screening an offender from legal punishment is absent. It is also contended that the apartment, namely Padmavathi Nilayam, is not the scene of offence, and as such, the question of destruction or concealment of evidence relating to the alleged crime does not arise.
5.3. The petitioners assert that there is no material whatsoever to show that they destroyed, altered, or caused the disappearance of any evidence, which is a sine qua non for attracting Section 201 of the IPC. On the contrary, the DVR was voluntarily produced before the police, and there is no allegation of tampering with or deletion of any data contained therein.
5.4. It is further submitted that their implication is based solely on an alleged confessional statement made before the police, which is inadmissible in evidence in view of the bar contained under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. According to the petitioners, Section 27 of the Evidence Act has no application to the facts of the case, as the DVR was produced prior to the recording of any alleged confession, rendering the same legally inadmissible.
5.5. In the absence of any independent or corroborative evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged offence, their prosecution is stated to be based purely on inadmissible material and conjectures. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the continuation of criminal proceedi
