Book Investigating Officers Who Fail To Secure CCTV Footage In Criminal Cases: Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs Haryana DGP

The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi further directed,

"In case of any omission to do so, direct registration of case under Section 166-A of the IPC (Public Servant disobeying direction under Law) against the defaulting Investigating Officer."

The Court issued the direction to the Director General of Police, Haryana State and was asked to issue appropriate instructions to Commissioners and Superintendents of Police to exercise effective supervision over the officials posted in their respective districts.

Case before the Court

The direction was issued by the bench while hearing a regular bail plea filed by one Rahul in a case registered against him under Sections 323, 324, 326, 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The bail applicant-accused has been booked for allegedly causing grievous injury with a sharp-edged weapon.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case, nature of accusation against the petitioner, the fact that the case involves disputed question as to the person who caused grievous injury with sharp edged weapon to injured-Anil Kumar, the Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner (Rahul).

However, the Court observed that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer did not obtain copy of CCTV coverage of the occurrence in the camera installed in the vicinity of the place of occurrence with requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The Superintendent of Police, Sirsa informed the court that departmental action has been initiated against the Investigating Officer.

However, the Court opined that taking of departmental action in one or more of such cases does not remedy the damage caused to the cause of justice and that steps are required to be taken to ensure that such lapses do not occur again and again.

In this backdrop, the Court issued the direction to the DGP, Haryana.

Related News

Notably, in a historic Judgment, the Supreme Court last week (02^nd December) observed that the State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning under them.

Justice RF Nariman led bench observed that these directives shall be implemented both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.

The Court also directed the Central Government to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of central agencies like CBI, NIA etc.

In this path breaking Judgment, the Supreme Court held that in case of any human right violation by investigating agencies like police, CBI, NIA, ED Etc, the victims have the right to get the copy of CCTV footage of interrogation and also to approach the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an offence.

Recently, while noting that "CCTV system controls activities like atrocities against persons who are brought to police station", the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) observed last week that the argument advanced by the police that the CCTV system installed in police station was not working couldn't be accepted.

The Bench of Justice T. V. Nalawade & Justice M. G. Sewlikar further observed,

In October, the Calcutta High Court had directed the Home Secretary, Government of West Bengal to disclose the status of CCTVs in all police stations including child-friendly corner.

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday (04^th November) took suo moto cognizance of the news reports regarding alleged custodial death of a 15-year-old boy at Mallarpur area in the Birbhum District.

Case title – Rahul v. State of Haryana [CRM-M-31490-2020 (O&M)]

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order