The High Court · 2025

State of Telan_gal?, Iep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, through Nallakunta P.S., Hyderabad. ..ieSPOOeruf Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. P. BHANU PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered -the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL . CRI MINAL APPEAL No. 1456 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (per TI^e Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This appeal jsi Iiled by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the V Additional Metropolitar:. Sessions Judge (Mahila rlourt), Hyderabad, in SC.No.25 of 2(116 dated

15.03.2018, conr.ir:ting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo Life Impriso.trment and to pay a fine of Rs I ,O0O/-.

2. Heard learne<l counsel for the appellant and Sri fuun Kumar Dodla, learned .Additional Pubtic Prosecutor, Sri M.Vi'rekanalda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The appella.nt 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 CCIV camera. On the basis of Lhe 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 Na-Ilakunta Police Statiorr. 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. l-Constable lodged Ex.Pl-complaint, stating that they found the body of al 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 insta-lled 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 Lrody was found.

5. PW.5 stated that, between 3.00 and.4.00 A'M', while he along with his friend *ere sitting in front of a showroom and having Tea, they heard a sound, arld when they went there, they found the deceased \ring 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 iderttified the appellant. PW.5, in his cross-examination' 3 stated that he did not state in his statements recorcled urlder Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that he was sitting to have Tea between 3.OO and4.00 A.M. on 1O.08.2O15.

6. PW.9 is the Manager of Charitha Automobiles Sihowroom, where the CCTV footage cameras were installed. He ide ntilied the CCTV footage in u4rich a person is seen hitting a sleeping person with a stone. After confirming the death of the sleeping person, the person left the scen,:

7. The entire r:ase 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 wherevel the interest of justice justifres. The said finding of the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the Judgm<:nt of the Honourable Supreme Court in Chandrabhan Sudq.m Sanap a. Stcrte of Maharashtrq t.

9. The Honourable Supreme Court in the above case held that I Section 65(8) (4\ certificate is a condition preceden t to the admissibility of electronic records I 2023 SCC Online 1342 4

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 appellalt to the crime. Although PW.5 stated that he saw the appellalt 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 Cr.P.C. Further, LW.S, who stated that he saw the appellant along with PW.s, was not examined. Even if the evidence of PW.5 is considered, where he claims to have seen the appellant either beating the deceased or running from the scene and that they found the dead body, the First Information was given at about 5:50 hours, which is nearly 2 Y, ho:urs after the incident took place. For the said reason, the presence of PW.5 is doubtful. In fact, PW.s did not give any information to the Police about the incident.

11. PW.9 was working as Manager of Charitha Mobiles when he handed over the CCTV footage. PW.9 did not say whether he handed over the hard disk or the two CDs under Ex.P12. PW.8 is the Assistant Oiiector of FSL, Hyderabad, who analysed two CDs'and gave opinion, vide Ex.P3, that the video clips in the CDs were not tampered with. However, PW.S did not state that he examined the two CDs under Ex.P12. The Court observed that there was no section 65(8)(4) (rertificate while marking Ex.p3, howe.,,er, no steps were taken to obtain a 65(B)(a) certificate during the triar. Ex.p12- CDs were marked through pW. l4_Investigating Office r, subject to objection. Pw 14 says he collected cDs-Ex.pl2 from ptr\;.9, however, PW.g did not say anything about copying.footage onto the CDs_ Ex.P12

12. There is rLo other evidence apart from the CDs (C(ITV footage) which are filed before the Court. Though the FSL report_Ex.p3 was filed ald the CDs were sent to the FSL, however, in tht. absence of the certilicate ,nder section 65(BX4) of the Indian Er idence Act, required for adrnissibility of electronic secondary eviden,:e, the said footage cannot be looked into.

13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, Crimina-l Appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER $\ To 1-The V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge ( Mahila Court ), Hyderabad. ( with records) 2. The lV Additional Chief lllletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. The Statictn'House Officer , Nillakunta p-olice Statiirn, Hyderabad. 4. The.Superintendent, Central prison, Chanchalguda, _ jlyderabad. ( By Speciat Messenger) 5. Two ccs to Pubric Prosecutor, H-igri court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 6. One CC to SRl. P. BHANU PRAKASH, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two C.D.Copies - Kul/gh HIGH COURT DATED:101O412O25 JUDGMENT CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1456 ot 2018 k o () 1 S T,q f._r [2 rii iij?i I ALLOWING THE CII],. APPEAL A 5 ls5