Delhi Riots Site Plans Prepared Casually, S.65B Certificate Not Filed For Digitally Sourced Evidence: Court Calls For Sensitization Of Police

Dealing with a case related to 2020 Delhi riots, a city Court has called for sensitisation of investigating officers (IOs) on making the photos obtained from digital sources as admissible in evidence by filing a certificate under sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala ordered thus:

"Whenever, photographs are filed from digital sources, needless to say that a certificate under Section 65-B of I.E. Act, is must to make those photographs admissible in evidence. Therefore, all the IOs are required to be sensitized this respect as well and it is high time to control the casual and callous approach of any IO."

The Court also expressed displeasure over "casually prepared site plans" by stating that preparation of the same were not even expected in cases triable by the Metropolitan Magistrates.

"….but unfortunately this kind of site plan has been filed in such a serious case involving session triable case. Moreover, from the documents filed on the record, I find that certain photographs have been placed, but without any certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act," the Judge added.

The Court was dealing with an FIR registered on the complaint of one Salim Khan wherein he stated that his barber shop and spare parts shop was looted and put on fire during riots.

One of the accused Dharmender admitted his involvement in the matter and he, with other co-accused was seen carrying the carton of Rooh Afzah from the warehouse of a complainant in another FIR.

"In my opinion, a serious re-look over the quality of documents/evidence place on the record in the case, is required by senior officer with all serious attention," the Court said.

It added "Hence, ld. DCP (North East) is requested to go through the records of this case and to submit his report, if the prosecution is to be carried on, on the basis of same site plan and other materials as placed on the record."

As the Special Public Prosecutor undertook to be much careful in future, the Court listed the matter for further hearing on August 17.