Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.2. Subsequently, on 06.08.2022, the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 produced the said DVR before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram, and the same was seized. According to the prosecution, accused No. 1 instructed the petitioners, through a WhatsApp message, to remove the DVR from his apartment on 10.07.2022, pursuant to which they removed and retained it. On the basis of the alleged confessional statement, the petitioners were implicated in the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.

5.2. The petitioners further submit that the CCTV footage contained in the said DVR is not incriminating against accused No. 1, and therefore, the essential ingredient of screening an offender from legal punishment is absent. It is also contended that the apartment, namely Padmavathi Nilayam, is not the scene of offence, and as such, the question of destruction or concealment of evidence relating to the alleged crime does not arise.

5.3. The petitioners assert that there is no material whatsoever to show that they destroyed, altered, or caused the disappearance of any evidence, which is a sine qua non for attracting Section 201 of the IPC. On the contrary, the DVR was voluntarily produced before the police, and there is no allegation of tampering with or deletion of any data contained therein. 5.4. It is further submitted that their implication is based solely on an alleged confessional statement made before the police, which is inadmissible in evidence in view of the bar contained under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. According to the petitioners, Section 27 of the Evidence Act has no application to the facts of the case, as the DVR was produced prior to the recording of any alleged confession, rendering the same legally inadmissible.

11. The statements of witnesses and the recitals in the charge sheet indicate that the accusation against the petitioners primarily rests upon their alleged confessional statements recorded during investigation, wherein they are stated to have admitted that they removed the DVR to prevent the police from tracking the movements of accused No. 1.

12. It is also an admitted position that the said DVR was subsequently produced before the police on 06.08.2022 and was seized under a panchanama. Significantly, there is no specific allegation of tampering with or destruction of the data contained therein.

13. On the basis of the above material, the prosecution seeks to implicate the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 201 of the IPC on the premise that removal of the DVR amounts to causing disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening accused No. 1 from legal punishment.

14. However, from the material available on record, it prima facie appears that the DVR was neither destroyed nor altered, but was ultimately recovered intact. There is no independent material, apart from the alleged confessional statements, to demonstrate that the petitioners made any attempt to destroy, conceal, or falsify evidence.