Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

PW6 Dr.Mule testified that he alongwith his three partners run Deep Hospital. He has named his partners. In para 8 of examination-in-chief he deposed that, there are CCTV cameras installed in the hospital. DVR was installed in his cabin and such system was installed four years prior to the incident through a agency owned by one Shailesh Kumar Wakekar. Its maintenance was with said agency. On day of incident, DVR was functional but he added that it was showing incorrect date and time. According to him, that said fault has developed 3-4 weeks prior to incident. Police seized DVR CRI APPEAL 736 OF 2016 & ORS..odt on the date of incident in his presence and Police drew panchanama which he claims to be signed. He also identified the DVR.

While under cross-examination on this point, he answered that he does not have receipt of DVR and that similar DVRs are available in the market and that there was no hospital identification mark over the DVR. He stated that he called agency to cure the defects about date and time. He stated that Police seized DVR between 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Learned Counsel for accused no.3 also questioned about warranty of DVR. Witness answered that on call agency was sending Shailesh or his assistant to cure the defects in DVR.

In cross-examination on the point of DVR, he answered that he did not observe date of the recording stored and displayed in the DVR. He stated that it was played for two and half to three hours. He is also questioned at which of the places there was blood.

When cross-examined by learned Counsel for accused no.3, he denied having seen DVR previously and that he was unaware of its functioning and its processing.

22. Another witness on the CCTV footage, who is examined by prosecution, is PW2 Vijay Anandrao Bhivsene. On carefully going through his evidence, it is revealed that he is a Technician employed by the Sales and Services, who supplied and installed CCTV cameras and DVR in Deep Hospital. On being called by Police, he connected the system with Monitor and the same was viewed and shown to PW1 Somnath.

CRI APPEAL 736 OF 2016 & ORS..odt

23. Even above witness is subjected to exhaustive cross-examination. As regards to his part is concerned i.e. on the point of CCTV footage and DVR is concerned, cross-examination is found in paragraph 7, wherein he, after watching the footage of camera no.1, has answered that face of the persons near the scene near the sliding gate is not identifiable due to pixel results. Camera installed at main gate was night vision camera and because of that, there was excess shadow and as such there was no clarity. He also stated that the faces of the persons coming inside the gate are not identifiable i.e. in camera nos.2, 5, 6, 8. In paragraphs 16 and 17 there are questions about DVR, possibility of tampering. He admitted that he did not read Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and that he is not aware about the certification and so he did not carry it. However, he denied that date and time displayed on DVR to be not changed and recording to be as it is and that warranty of the unit installed at Deep Hospital had expired.