Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 April, 2017
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIC
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2302/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/06/2014
in CRLA No. 404/2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
at Shimla)
SHAFHI MOHAMMAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from
filing c/c of the impugned judgment and office report)
Date : 25/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.I. Cheema, Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Adv.
Ms. E. R. Sumathy,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG.
Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Adv.
Mr. Sareen Kasawa, Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hossai, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Rebello, Adv.
Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv.
Ms. Sneha Tendulkar, Adv.
Mr B.K. Prasad, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Notice was issued to consider the question whether in every case of recovery when possession itself is an offence, the investigator must videograph the scene of recovery and whether in every other case the scene of crime should also be videographed Signature Not Verified during investigation.
Digitally signed bySWETA DHYANI Date: 2017.04.28 11:23:13 IST Reason:
We requested learned Attorney General to depute a Law Officer to assist the Court and also requested Mr. A.I. Cheema, 2 Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus.
Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Additional Solicitor General, has accordingly put in appearance and made his submissions. He has also submitted a note to the effect that such videograph will indeed help the investigation and such concept is being used in some other advanced countries. The National Institute of Justice which is an agency of U.S. Department of Justice in its report has noted the perceived benefits for using the “Body-Worn Cameras” and also the precautions needed in doing so. The British Transport Police has also found body worn cameras as deterrent against anti-social behaviour and tool to collect evidence. He also referred to judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 wherein reference to use of technology during search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been made. Reference has also been made to Information Technology Act (Amendment) 2006, particularly, Section 79A. In (1976) 2 SCC 17, Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari Vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors., this Court noted that new techniques and devices are the order of the day. Audio and video tape technology has emerged as a powerful medium through which a first hand information can be gathered and can be crucial evidence.
Learned Additional Solicitor General has also drawn our attention to the Field Officers' Handbook issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, inter-alia, suggesting that logistic support be provided to the search teams. It further suggests that all recovery and concealment methods should be videographed simultaneously. The said handbook 3 also suggests that permission should be taken under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for pretrial disposal of the contraband. Further, reference has been made to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Bill, 2016 moved by a private member in the Lok Sabha. He submits that in his view such Bill will advance the interests of justice and he will advice the Government of India to consider and oversee adoption for these measures in the Country by investigating agencies.
Mr. A.I. Cheema, learned Amicus points out that Second Proviso to Section 54A of the Cr.P.C. provides for videography of identification process in circumstances specified in the said provision. He also stated that there should be videography of confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He states that such measures can also be adopted for recording dying declarations, identification processes and the post-mortem.
Since, we find that at the ground level these measures have not been fully adopted, we direct the Home Secretary, Government of India to ascertain from different Investigating Agencies to how far such measures can be adopted and what further steps be taken to make use of above technology for effective investigation and crime prevention.
Let an affidavit of the steps taken be filed by the Home Secretary, Union of India within two months from today.
List for further consideration on 11th July, 2017.
(SWETA DHYANI) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
SR.P.A COURT MASTER