Proving Electronic Evidence With Certificate Not Required If Other Corroborating Evidence Is Sufficient To Prove Guilt: P&H High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of the accused in a dacoity and murder case, observing that even if there is non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act in proving electronic evidence, the same will not be a ground to set aside the conviction.The bench upheld the conviction awarded by the trial court which convicted the accused persons on the basis of...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of the accused in a dacoity and murder case, observing that even if there is non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act in proving electronic evidence, the same will not be a ground to set aside the conviction.
The bench upheld the conviction awarded by the trial court which convicted the accused persons on the basis of CCTV footage wherein they were clearly seen committing the crime. The High Court noted that since the footage was produced without a certificate it is not admissible evidence but the presence of other corroborative evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.
Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Karamjit Singh said, "In terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, if any recovery is made pursuant to statement made by the accused in the police custody, the said part of the statement would be admissible in evidence, to connect the accused with the crime. In the instant case, on the basis of disclosure statements made by accused Shankar, Ajay, Rafiq and Lala Ram, recovery of looted articles (bundles of cloths) and sale proceeds thereof (amounting to Rs.1.80 lakh) was effected. Thus, even if there is non-compliance of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, the same will not be a ground to set aside the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court."
Background
The Court was hearing appeals of five convicted persons in a dacoity and murder case. According to the FIR, they murdered the guard of the company to commit dacoity.
CCTV footage showed that five to six persons had entered the company by scaling the wall and committed the murder of Laxman Singh, Guard.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 457, 396, 120-B and 412 of IPC and sentenced them to life, observing that "the CCTV footage had captured the entire occurrence, showing the manner in which, the deceased was being overpowered by the accused and he was ultimately murdered."
Counsel for the appellant argued that the findings of the trial Court are based on the CCTV footage, but while producing the said CCTV footage in evidence, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others, (2014), have not been followed and thus, the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court, is liable to be set aside.
After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the CD of the CCTV footage is "secondary evidence, as the original server or the computer in which the CCTV footage was stored, was not produced."
As the evidence of CCTV footage was produced as secondary evidence, no details regarding the server, IP address and the computer from which it was prepared were brought on record or mentioned in the Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, it noted further.
The bench observed that there is "no proper compliance of Section 65-B(2) and (4) of the Evidence Act" as per the Anvar PV case.
However, it noted that the DNA of the blood on the items of the robbery matched the accused person.
"The defence did not lead any evidence to controvert or disprove the said scientific piece of evidence. The factum of matching of DNA profile of blood stains on various items with that of accused Manoj clearly proves that the said accused had participated in the crime," the bench said.
"The offence under Section 396 IPC stipulates that if any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, if anyone of the accused or all of them while committing the dacoity committed murder, then all of them would be liable," it added further.
The Court also took note of other corroborative evidence like recovery of the looted articles from other accused persons involved in the crime.
It concluded that "From the evidence on record, it stands clearly proved that accused-appellant Ranjit, Shankar, Bablu and Gautam (along with co-accused Manoj, Ali Hasssan and Stander – declared juvenile) had committed the murder of the deceased Laxman Singh, who was posted as a security guard on the day of occurrence in the Company."
The recovery of looted bundles of cloths and the vehicle TATA Ace used while committing the said crime coupled with the sale proceeds of the looted articles, clearly connects the chain of evidence to hold that it was the accused, who had committed the crime in question, it added further.
In light of the above, the appeal was dismissed.
Title: Shankar v. State of Haryana [other connected cases]
Mr. Harmeet Singh Oberoi, Advocate for the appellant(s) (in CRA-D-118-DB-2019 and CRA-D-1107-DB-2018).
Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Shuchi Sodhi, Advocate, for the appellant(s) (in CRA-D-118-2019, CRA-S- 3153-SB -2018 and CRA-S-3154-SB-2018).
Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, and Ms. Riffi Birla, Advocate, for appellant nos. 1 and 2 (in CRA-D-1107-DB-2018).
Mr. Gurfateh Singh Khosa, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the appellant(s) (in CRA-S-2982-SB-2018)
and for appellant No. 3 in CRA-D-1107-DB-2018).
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 260