Bangalore District Court
Bengaluru City Railway P.S vs Natesh Alias Appi on 2 April, 2026
1 S.C.No.359/2021
KABC010075102021
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2026.
: PRESENT :
Sri. I. P. Naik
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE No.359/2021
Complainant : State by:
Bangalore City Railway Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
// Vs.//
Accused : 1. Natesh @ appi
S/o.Late Chandrashekar,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at.No.86, 1st Cross,
2nd Main Road,
Srinivasa Nagar,
2 S.C.No.359/2021
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru City,
Karnataka.
Permanent:
R/o.No.86, 1st Cross,
2nd Main Road, Srinivasa Nagar,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru City,
Karnataka.
1. Date of commission of offence : 06.05.2020
2. Date of filing of the complaint : 06.05.2020
3. Name of the first informant : Saleem C Nadaf
4. Offences complained of : U/Sec. 302, 324 of
IPC.
5. Date of commencement of : 07.12.2022
recording the evidence
6. Date of closing of the : 22.09.2025
evidence
7. Finding of the Court : Accused is not
found guilty
8. Date of pronouncement of :
Judgment 02/04/2026.
******
3 S.C.No.359/2021
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Bangalore City Railway Police Station, Bengaluru has filed charge sheet against accused person alleging that, he has committed an alleged offence U/Sec. 302, 324 of IPC .
2. The factual Matrix of prosecution's case;
A parking lot situated at the 2 nd entrance gate of the City Railway Station Bengaluru which is comes within the territorial limits of City Railway Police Station Circle, Bengaluru, on 06.05.2020 commotion taken place between deceased and accused, the CW2 Suresh @ Yashwant tried to rescue the deceased from the commotion, at that time, accused pushed the CW2 with hands and assaulted with the spoon and caused simply injury. Thereafter, accused has knowingly and 4 S.C.No.359/2021 intentionally assaulted with deadly weapon i.e., stone and wooden plank on head of Srinivas, he was succumbed to the said injuries. Hence, accused is charge sheeted.
3. In this regard, CW1 lodged complaint before the CW.34/1st investigating officer. Based on that the CW.35/PSI Smt. Bharathi registered the case against accused persons in Cr.No.96/2020 and forwarded FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, 2nd investigating officer/CW.35/PI by name Salim.C.Nadaf rushed to spot and issued notice to panchas, wherein, he has drawn SO mahazar and seized the hawai chappal and blood stained English news papers. After drawing mahazar, as there was chance of raining, immediately, he has shifted the dead body to the Victoria Hospital. On 7.5.2020 2 nd IO 5 S.C.No.359/2021 has deputed the CW.30 to CW.34 for search and caught hold of the accused.
4. Thereafter he has issued notice to panchas for conducting inquest mahazar on the dead body. CW5 and CW6 were present when the 2 nd IO has conducted inquest mahazar. Meanwhile, CW17 and 19 have identified the dead body of the Srinivas at Victoria Hospital. Further, 2nd IO interrogated the CW1, 2, 3, 7 to 19 and recorded their statement U/Sec 161 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he has submitted requisition to a Doctor, to conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, CW21 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Srinivas. Finally he has opined that the death has occurred due to injuries sustained with stone and wooden plank. If a person sustains head injuries he may be succumb as result of said injuries. He has sent seized materials to 6 S.C.No.359/2021 the FSL for scientific examination and submission of the report. Thereafter, 2nd IO has collected wound certificate and postmortem report. After contemplating, other formalities, IO submitted charge sheet against the accused.
5. On considering charge sheet and other materials on record, the learned 41st ACJM, Bengaluru took cognizance for alleged offences and ordered for registration of the case against the accused person in Register-III. After securing accused from jail, the learned committal has supplied a copy of charge sheet and material to accused, then case has been committed to Court of Sessions for Trial.
6. On receipt of the records, The Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru has ordered to 7 S.C.No.359/2021 reregistration of case against the accused person, this case is transferred and made over to this court for disposal of this case in accordance with law.
7. Later on accused is secured from the jail, Thereafter, Charge has been framed, same has been read over and explained to accused persons in the language known to him. Accused persons abjured the guilt and claims to be tried. Hence, case is posted for evidence.
Meanwhile, accused enlarged on bail.
8. The prosecution has relied on following oral evidence, documentary evidence and material objects;
I. Oral Evidence Place By Prosecution;
Rank Of Name of Character Of Witness
Witness Witness
PW.1 Suresh Injured/Eye Witness
PW.2 Abdul Witness to inquest
Rehiman mahazar and seizer of
8 S.C.No.359/2021
CD
PW.3 Sagar Eye witness,
identification of accused
and witness to SO
Mahazar
PW.4 Uma Shankar Eye witness and witness
to SO Mahazar
PW.5 Arul Kumar Witness of inquest
mahazar
PW.6 Surendra Eye witness
PW.7 Chandra Eye witness
PW.8 Dr. Nandi Examined the deceased
Shenoy at spot
PW.9 Dr.Radha Examined the injured
PW.10 Smt Mother of deceased
Sharadamma
PW.11 Dr.Suresh Conduct autopsy on
dead body
PW.12 Imbran Friend of accused and
deceased
PW.13 Head Who submitted articles
Constable to FSL
M.Shivanna
PW.14 PSI Smt First IO
Bharati
PW.15 Smt Mamatha Scientific officer Yadav PW.16 Salim C.Nadaf Second IO 9 S.C.No.359/2021 II. Documentary Evidence Place By Prosecution;
Exhibits Description of Proved by/
Documents Attested by
Ex.P.1 Statement of Injured PW.1
Ex.P.2 Inquest Mahazar PW.2
Ex.P.3 Seizer Mahazar PW.2
Ex.P.4 SO-cum-Seizer Mahazar PW.3
Ex.P.5 Digital Photos PW.
&7
Ex.P.6 & Statement of PW.3 PW.3
8
Ex.P.9 OS mahazar as shown by PW.4
accused
Ex.P.10 Digital Photos PW.4
& 11
Ex.P.12 Search Mahazar PW.4
Ex..13 Statement of PW.4 PW.4
Ex.14 to Digital Photos PW.2
16
Ex.P.17 Statement of PW.2 PW.2
Ex.18 Notice PW.2 &
PW.5
Ex.P.19 Statement of PW.6 PW.6
Ex.P.20 Statement of PW.7 PW.7
Ex.P.21 Massage PW.8
Ex.P.22 Wound certificate PW.9
Ex.23 Dead body photo PW.10
Ex.P.24 Statement of PW.10 PW.10
Ex.P.25 P.M.Report PW.11
Ex.P.26 Statement of PW.12 PW.12
Ex.P.27 Requisition PW.13
Ex.P.28 Acknowledgment PW.13
Ex.P.29 First Information PW.14
10 S.C.No.359/2021
Statement
Ex.P.30 First Information Report PW.15
Ex.P.31 Requisition PW.16
Ex.P.32 Report submitted of PW.14 PW.14 &
PW.16
Ex.P.33 FSL Report PW.15
Ex.P.34 Model Seal PW.15
Ex.P.35 Notice PW.16
Ex.P.36 Notice PW.16
Ex.P.37 Voluntary Statement of PW.16
accused
Ex.P.38 Notice PW.16
Ex.P.39 Requisition PW.16
Ex.40 Certificate PW.16
III. Material Objects Place By Prosecution;
Sl,No. Description of MO Proved by/
Of MO Attested by
MO.1 CD PW.2
MO.2 T-Shirt PW.11
MO.3 Underwear PW.11
MO.4 Jeans pat PW.11
MO.5 Chappal PW.15
MO.6 Napkin PW.15
MO.7 Blood Stained news paper PW.15
MO.8 Stone PW.15
MO.9 Belt PW.15
11 S.C.No.359/2021
9. In order to secure the CW.1, CW.4, CW.5, CW.8, CW.12, CW.13, CW.16, CW.29 and CW.30 issued summons, NBW and proclamation, in spite of that, these witnesses not secured by concerned police, best reasons know them. The learned PP has given-up the CW.18 to CW.20, CW.21, CW.24, CW.26 to CW.28, CW.31 to CW.33.
10. After closing of prosecution's evidence, accused examined U/Sec 351 of BNS Sanhitha-2023 and recorded his statement of accused by putting incriminating evidence.
He has denied the incriminating evidence. Further, he has not chosen to lead evidence and no documents on his behalf.
11. Heard, both side.
12. The following points would arise for my consideration;
12 S.C.No.359/2021(1) Whether prosecution proves that death of the deceased Srinivas, was homicidal?
(2) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused assaulted on the Srinivas in order to killed him with stone and wooden plank on his head, due to the said head injuries deceased died and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC., within my cognizance.?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused was voluntarily assaulted on PW.1 with stone Who tried to rescue the deceased in alleged incident and caused simple injury, thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec 324 of IPC., within my cognizance.?
(4) What order?
13. On considering ocular and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution and hearing of the parties my answer to above point is as under;
13 S.C.No.359/2021POINT No.1 : In the Affirmative.
POINT No.2 : In the Negative.
POINT No.3 : In the Negative.
POINT No.4 : As per final order.
----------------for following REASONS
14. In this case the learned P.P has submitted that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons, based on the C.D, which discloses that the accused assaulted on the deceased. This itself is sufficient regarding proving of the guilt of the accused person.
15. In this case, the Doctor, scientific officer, investigating officer are supported the prosecution case.
The prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the 14 S.C.No.359/2021 accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prays to convict the accused person.
16. As against this, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the PW2 is eye witness, PW.1 Suresh is the Victim/Injured PW.2- Abdul Rehman Witness to inquest mahazar and seizer of CD. PW.3-Sagar, Eye witness, identification of accused and witness to SO Mahazar. PW.4-Uma Shankar Eye witness and witness to SO Mahazar. PW.5-Arul Kumar Witness of inquest mahazar. PW.6-Surendra, Eye witness. PW.7-Chandra Eye witness, PW.10-Smt.Sharadamma Mother of deceased. PW.12-Imbran- Friend of accused and deceased,
17. The aforesaid these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The oral testimony of PW10 relates 15 S.C.No.359/2021 to the identification of the dead body. PW10 being the mother of the accused Srinivas, she has identified her son's dead body.
18. The prosecution relied on the CD produced to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The said CD is accompanied with the Certificate. But the author or custodian of the CCTV Footage is not examined before the court. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, prays for acquitted the accused from alleged offences.
19. In support of this contention, the accused has relied on the following Judgments:
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 980 Rajendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttarachal Etc Crl Appeal No 1467/2012 Dtd 18.09.2024 Ramesh & Anr vs State of Karnataka 16 S.C.No.359/2021 (2014) 10 SCC 473 Anvar P.V Vs Basheer & Anr (2020) 7 SCC 1 Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal & Ors POINT No.1.
20. Dr.Nandini Shenoy/PW.8 deposed that on 06.05.2020 at about 05:00pm she received message from Deputy Station Master, Bengaluru, regarding unknown person was lying near New Booking Office platform No.9 of SBC Station in unconscious manner. Immediately herself and staff rushed to said place. On inspection, she has found following injuries on said unknown person.
1. CLW about 0.8cms over the right side of chin.
2. Blood bleeding fron nostrils.
3. Linear CLW about 3 cms over left eyebrow.
4. CLW over upper lip left side about 3 cms.
5. Large Brush abrasion over left side of back about 18 X 10 cms.
21. PW.8 further stated on oath that breathing was absent, heart sound unheard pupils were dilated and 17 S.C.No.359/2021 fixed. Accordingly, she had impression that life of said unknown person was extincted. In this regard PW.8 issued certificate/Ex.P.21.
22. During cross examination PW.8 deposed that, before she arrived to spot life of said unknown person was extinct. She was unable give opinion regarding death of unknown person due to aforesaid injuries.
23. According prosecution case PW.10/Smt Sharadamma who identified the dead body of deceased Srinivas. She being mother, deposed that five years back, the police have told that her son was murdered, immediately she came to Bengaluru along with her daughter and son-in-law and found dead body of Srinivas at Hospital, after postmortem, taken body and performed final rituals. During cross examination, PW.10 stated that, she heard about incident through police. She has identified the dead body of Srinivas who was non than her son.
24. PW.2 Abdul Rahim witness to inquest mahazar. He stated on oath that, 2½ to 2¾ years back police have 18 S.C.No.359/2021 escorted him to Vitoria Hospital and shown dead body of male, he found injuries on face and police have obtained his signature on inquest mahazar/Ex.P.2. During cross examination PW.2 admitted that he has not aver about this case and he signed on documents at police station on request of police.
25. 2nd investigating officer/PW.16 by name Salim C. Nadaf deposed that after conducting SO mahazar and recovery of MO.5 to MO.7, he was immediately shifted the dead body, due to chance of rain to Victoria Hospital. Wherein, he drawn inquest mahazar in the presence of witnesses and relatives of deceased, he has requested the Dr. Suresh, to conduct autopsy on dead body of deceased Srinivas by submitting Form-146(i) and 146(ii).
26. PW.11/Dr.Suresh deposed that, on examination, he found following external injuries on dead body.
1. Abrasion measuring 2cm X 1 cm over left eye brow.
2. Abrasion measuring 3cms X 1.5 cms present 2cms below outer angle of left eye.
3. Full thickness laceration of upper lip measuring 1.5cm X 0.5cm full thickness present in middle ofleft side.
19 S.C.No.359/20214. Abrasion over lower half of nose over an area of 3 cms X 2 cms.
5. Contusion over bridge ofnose 2 cms X 1 cm.
6. Right half of upper lip contused with an abrasion of 1 cm X 1cm at its middle.
7. Abrasuib neasyrubg 3cms X 1m presently obliquely below outer angel of right eye.
8. Abrasion over back of right elbow 5 cms X 3 cms.
9. Abrasion over inner aspet of left elbow 6 cms X 4 cms.
10. Abrasion over right scapular region 8 cms X 4 cms.
11. Grazed abrasion over left scapular region extending to lumbar region with loss of skin ovre an are of 25 cms X 10 cms
27. Further, after dissection of dead body, he noted following internal injuries.
Scalp: on reflection shows blood exravasation. Skull: Nasal bone fractured in to multiple pieces. Right mixilla fractured extending in to floor of righ orbit. Right midle cranial fossa fractured measuring 11 cms. Membrance: Lacerated along fractured lines.
20 S.C.No.359/202128. On examination, PW.11 opined that, death is due ti coma as a result of head injuries sustained. A person may sustained injuries as mentioned in postmortem report if assaulted with wooden plank and stone. Further, PW.11 has identified cloths i.e., T-Shirt, underwear and jeans pat with belt, same are marked at MO.2 to 4. In cross examination PW.11 opined that if any heavy loaded vehicle passes on head in road traffic accident, he may sustained injuries as stated in the postmortem report/Ex.P.25.
29. On considering oral evidence of PW.8, PW.10, PW.16 and PW.11 and inquest mahazar and postmortem, death of deceased Srinivas is not natural. It is homicidal one. Accordingly, point No.1 answered in affirmative.
Point No.2 & 3:-
30. It is specific case of the prosecution that, PW.1/ Suresh @ Yashawant is eye witness and injured witness in alleged offence, PW.3 Sagar, PW.4 Uma Shankar, PW.6 21 S.C.No.359/2021 Surendra and PW.7 Chandra @ Balu are eye witnesses to alleged incident.
31. PW.3 is witness to recovery of hawai chappal/MO.5, Napkin/MO.6 and blood stained English News paper and witnesses to SO Mahazar and Seizer Mahazar/Ex.P.4.
32. PW.2 Abdul Rahim and PW.5 witness to recovery of CD/MO.1. As per the recitals of seizer mahazar/Ex.P.3 CW.15 who is super wiser of CCTv operate installed at 2 nd entry gate of Bengaluru City Rail Away Station.
33. PW.10 Smt Sharadamma who is non other than mother of deceased Srinivas and PW.12 Imran is common friend of deceased and accused.
34. Aforesaid these witnesses are not supported the prosecution case and fully turned hostile to prosecution case. The learned PP has cross examined these witnesses by treating hostile witnesses, in spite of that nothing elicited from their mouth to prove alleged incident, to prove recitals of Ex.P.3 and recovery CD/MO.1, recitals of SO mahazar/Ex.P.4 and recovery of MO.5 to 7, recitals of 22 S.C.No.359/2021 seizer of MO.8 by drawing mahzar/ Ex.P.9, recitals of search mahazar/Ex.P.18. It is fatal prosecution case.
35. PW.09 Dr.Radha stated that on 06.05.2020 she has examined the PW.1 and found following injuires;
1. Tenderness over the nose
2. Deep cut lacerated wound over left parietal region.
36. Further, stated on oath that if person assaulted with stone on another, he may sustained injuries as cited in wound certificate/Ex.P.22. This version is not supported from ocular evidence of PW.2.
36. In this case PW14 stated that on 11.05.2020 herself and co-staff caught hold the accused at Tea Stall situated at Magadi Road Bengaluru and produced before I.O PW16.
37. PW.16 deposed that on 11.05.2020 he has arrested the accused and recorded his statement. Based on his statement he has issued notice Ex.P.38 to PW4- Umashankar, CW8-Shridhar, in order to draw the mahazar where place of incident was occurred and also show the place where he was thrown wooden plank.
23 S.C.No.359/202139. Further, PW16 stated that he has escorted the accused up to spot and conducted the Spot mahazar in the presence of PW4 and CW8, wherein accused produced the stone M.O-8. This version is not at all supported by the PW4. Further, IO escorted the accused at drainage running towards Sheshadripuram to Okalipuram, inspite of best efforts, wooden plank was not found. In this regard, he has drawn the mahazar Ex.P.12 in the presence of PW4 and CW8. PW4 has not supported the recitals of search mahazar Ex.P.12.
40. PW16 stated that he has send the blood stain articles to FSL through PW13 Head Constable Shivanna.
41. PW15 FSL officer by name Smt.B.R.Mamtha Yadav deposed that she has examined the M.O-2 to 9 and opined that blood stain found on these articles are human origin and belongs to O+ positive then, she has returned the said articles by repacking with their Departmental seal.
24 S.C.No.359/202142. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined PW15 in length. Inspite of that, her evidence is not impeached.
43. By considering the oral testimony of PW11 and 12 it clearly discloses that articles ie., chappal, napkin, stone clothes of the deceased sustained human origin blood.
44. In this case, eye witnesses, hear say witness and panchas to the recovery of the articles not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution is relying on the CD, M.O-1 to prove the guilt of the accused. During recording of the oral evidence of M.O-1 was played and he stated regarding one person assaulting on the head of the another person with wooden plank. This M.O-1 is supported with certificate as contemplated U/s.63 of BSA which is marked as Ex.P.40.
45. According to prosecution case, at the time of recovery of CD/MO-1 PW5 Arul Kumar was present. He stated that, the police have obtained signature on notice Ex.P.18 and seizure mahazar Ex.P.3. During cross- examination he deposed that on 5.6.2021 police issued 25 S.C.No.359/2021 notice to him and seized the M.O-1, therefore, I have carefully perused the recitals of Ex.P.3. According to recitals of this mahazar CW15 Nagaraj who is custodian and operator of the CCTV Camera installed at 2 nd entry gate of the City Railway Station, Bengaluru. He has produced the CCTV DVR before the PW16 in his police station ie., City Railway Police Station, Bengaluru. CW15 Nagaraj was not examined in this case to prove the authenticity of the MO-1. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused has relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court;
(2014) 10 SCC 473 Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer "14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document i.e. electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65-B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act:
26 S.C.No.359/2021(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
16. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, compact disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be 27 S.C.No.359/2021 given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
17. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45-A--opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India." (Emphasis Supplied) AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908 Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub- section (1) needs to be analysed. The sub-section begins with a non- obstante clause, and then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic record produced by a computer, which is, by a deeming fiction, then made a "document". This deeming fiction only takes effect if the further conditions mentioned in the Section are satisfied in relation to both the information and the computer in question; and if such conditions are met, the "document" shall then be admissible in any proceedings. The words "...without further proof or production of the original..." make it clear that once the deeming fiction is given effect by the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the Section, the "deemed document" now becomes admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the original as evidence of any contents of the original, or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
31. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf - Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly differentiates between the "original" document - which would be the 28 S.C.No.359/2021 original "electronic record" contained in the "computer" in which the original information is first stored - and the computer output containing such information, which then may be treated as evidence of the contents of the "original" document. All this necessarily shows that Section 65B differentiates between the original information contained in the "computer" itself and copies made therefrom - the former being primary evidence, and the latter being secondary evidence.
32. Quite obviously, the requisite certificate in sub-section (4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, a computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where "the computer", as defined, happens to be a part of a "computer system" or "computer network" (as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000) and it becomes impossible to physically bring such network or system to the Court, then the only means of proving information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). This being the case, it is necessary to clarify what is contained in the last sentence in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads as "...if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act...". This may more appropriately be read without the words "under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,...". With this minor clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited.
33. In fact, in Vikram Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2017) 8 SCC 518, a three-Judge Bench of this Court followed the law in Anvar P.V. (supra), clearly stating that where primary evidence in electronic form has been produced, no certificate under Section 65B would be necessary. This was so stated as follows:
"25. The learned counsel contended that the tape- recorded conversation has been relied on without there being any certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872. It was contended that audio tapes are recorded on magnetic media, the same could be established through a certificate under Section 65- B and in the absence of the certificate, the document which constitutes electronic record, cannot be deemed to be a valid evidence and has to be ignored from consideration. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of this Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer. The conversation on the landline phone of the complainant situate in a shop was recorded by the 29 S.C.No.359/2021 complainant. The same cassette containing conversation by which ransom call was made on the landline phone was handed over by the complainant in original to the police. This Court in its judgment dated 25-1-2010 has referred to the aforesaid fact and has noted the said fact to the following effect:
"5. The cassette on which the conversations had been recorded on the landline was handed over by Ravi Verma to SI Jiwan Kumar and on a replay of the tape, the conversation was clearly audible and was heard by the police."
26. The tape-recorded conversation was not secondary evidence which required certificate under Section 65-B, since it was the original cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded, there cannot be any dispute that for admission of secondary evidence of electronic record a certificate as contemplated by Section 65-B is a mandatory condition."
46. By considering all these aspects, in view of the law laid down by their lordships, IO not visited to place wherein CCTV footage is installed. Further, there is no evidence to prove that CCTV camera and CCTV Footages are in working condition. As per the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court Arjun Pandit Rao's case (supra) certificate Ex.P.40 is substantive evidence, but prior condition is not proved as direction lead down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anwar P.V's case(supra).
47. The prosecution not at all proved the digital eidence in accordance with law. Prosecution is relying on the digital photos got marked at Ex.P.5, P.7 P.10 and P.11 are 30 S.C.No.359/2021 not supported with the certificate. Therefore, these photos and M.O-1 is inadmissible in the evidence.
48. For going reasons, it is held that all eye witnesses, circumstances witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. A digital evidence as relied by the prosecution are inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, it is held that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No.2 & 3 are answered in the Negative.
Point NO.4:-
49. For the forgoing reasons, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The powers confirmed upon me u/s 255 of BNS Sanhita-2023 the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302, 324 of IPC.31 S.C.No.359/2021
A bail bond executed by accused and his surety is shall stands cancelled and surety is hereby discharged.
M.O-1 to 9 are worthless, ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.Digitally signed
IP byP.INaik)
(Sri. I.
LXIII Addl. CityDate:
Judge (CCH-64),
P NAIK
Civil and Sessions
Bengaluru City.
2026.04.02
NAIK 17:19:51
+0530
32 S.C.No.359/2021
(Order typed vide separate sheet)
ORDER
The powers confirmed upon me
u/s 255 of BNS Sanhita-2023 the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302, 324 of IPC.
A bail bond executed by accused and his surety is shall stands cancelled and surety is hereby discharged.
M.O-1 to 9 are worthless, ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.
(I.P.Naik) LXIII ACC & SJ (CCH-64), Bengaluru City.