Rajasthan High Court Orders SOP, Police Training On Handling Electronic Evidence Like CCTV, Call Records

The Rajasthan High Court has issued directions to the Director General of Police to frame and circulate a standard operating procedure for the collection, seizure, preservation, and proof of electronic evidence within two months, especially CCTV footage and call detail records. 

Observing that the investigating officers are "unaware of the procedure required to be followed in the collection, seizure and preservation of electronic evidence and the mode of its proof", the division bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal directed:

"The Director General of Police shall, within two months, frame and circulate a standard operating procedure for the collection; seizure, preservation and proof of electronic evidence; particularly CCTV footage and call detail records, in conformity with the statutory provisions contained in the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023". 

The Court added, "the dispensation of justice by the Courts in criminal matters rests, in large measures, upon the quality of material placed before them."

These observations were made in an alleged honour killing case wherein the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused but failed to establish the complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence consistent with the only hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants.

The bench noted that the investigating officers conducted the investigation in a "casual, perfunctory and lackadaisical manner". 

A death reference was submitted before the High Court over the conviction and sentence of multiple men accused of honor killing in 2019. 

Per the facts, the complainant submitted a report on October 23, 2019, alleging that the previous night his brother was summoned to a petrol pump by five named persons and some unknown people. His brother was allegedly beaten and taken away in a passenger vehicle. Thus, an FIR was registered, leading to the discovery of the dead bodies of the deceased and another woman. Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed for murder (Section 302), kidnapping (Section 364), causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201), and unlawful assembly (Section 149) of the IPC. 

The Senior Counsel for the appellants challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial court issued the impugned conviction based on 'conjectures and surmises without being supported by any legally admissible evidence on record'. The senior counsel further argued that the part of the CCTV footage, seized from one of the appellant's houses (Ramgopal, father of the deceased woman), relied on by the prosecution, was seized three and a half months after the incident. 

The senior counsel argued that the footage seized from the DVR from the house was copied to a pen drive, which was seized but was not sealed. There was no corresponding entry recording the removal of the DVR seized from the house for the purposes of retrieving its data onto a pen drive. 

The senior counsel further relied on the statement of the concerned Constable stating that after the pen drive was marked Article 1, it was not sealed again and the footage analysis was done from this unsealed pen drive, which compromised its probative value. 

The senior counsel highlighted that though objections were raised regarding non-identification of people due to poor clarity/low light, the trial court still placed reliance upon the footage. The senior counsel argued that the prosecution failed to show an 'unbroken chain of custody of samples'. 

Further, it was argued that neither the DVRs nor the pendrives were ever subjected to FSL Examination to rule out the possibility of any tampering.

The counsel for the State argued that the guilt of the appellants was well established by the CCTV camera footage at the petrol pump and Ramgopal's house, authenticity of which was beyond any doubt. It was argued that the defective investigation would not come to the aid of the appellants whose guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. 

The counsel further argued that the appellants failed to explain the incriminating circumstances suggested to them during the course of their examination under Section 313 CrPC and therefore the Trial Court did not err in holding this to be an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. 

The court noted that, per the prosecution, this was the case of 'honour killing'. The court noted that the evidence proved that the deaths of the deceased couple were not natural but rather due to injuries received in the assault and asphyxia due to strangulation. 

The bench noted, "In the absence of any ocular evidence, the prosecution case hinges solely on circumstantial evidence". Referring to the Supreme Court case of Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP, the bench reiterated that the Trial Court ought to rely on the following circumstances to return a finding of guilt against the appellants: a) last seen theory and b) recovery of incriminating material on their disclosure statement or otherwise.

The court noted that neither the DVR nor the pen drives onto which the footage was copied were subjected to FSL examination to verify that no tampering was done and the data contained therein was intact. The court further noted that there was no material to show that the concerned officer who seized the DVR and copied the footage was a technical expert competent to copy data onto the pen drive, either from the DVR or the computer. 

Considering how the pen drive and DVR were processed by the police, the court held that the prosecution failed to maintain a complete and unbroken chain of custody regarding CCTV footage. Thus, the Trial Court should not have relied on CCTV footage from the DVR attached to the cameras from Ramgopal's house. 

Further, the bench noted that the Trial Court was not safe in holding the image in the CCTV footage to be that of Ramgopal, especially without meeting the objection that neither the face nor physique was clearly visible on account of darkness or poor clarity. Thus, the bench held that the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of Ramgopal. 

Regarding CCTV footage received from the petrol pump, the court noted that both the certificate and letter mentioned that the subject footage was copied onto a video CD and a pen drive, but conspicuously no video CD was seized and produced. 

The court held, "it is a case that rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was under an obligation to prove a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Further, as already observed by us, the prosecution could not prove the last seen evidence". 

The bench further held that the Trial Court "gravely erred" in holding it to be a case of honour killing. Thus, the death reference was refused. 

For State: Public Prosecutor Amit Kumar Punia

For Appellants: Senior Advocate V.R. Bajwa with Advocates Amar Kumar, Savita Nathawat, R.R. Baisla, Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Avtar Singh Rathore, Kapil Nagayach, Rajesh Goswami, Shiv Kumar Jangir, Garvit Saraswat, Jay Bhardwaj, Monika Shekhawat, Rahul Sharma, Chanchal, Utkarsh Goyal, Rajneesh Gupta and Narendra Singh Gurjar

For Legal Team: Senior Advocate N.A. Naqvi with Advocates Susheel Pujari, Dharmendra Gurjar, Happy Sharma, Mohd. Numan and Firoz Khan

For Respondents: Advocates Ashvin Garg, Sandeep Pathak, Sanjay Khedar, Mohit Goyal, Hem Bhushan Vedi and Utkarsh Meena