Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
30. Respondent-State as well as petitioners have put reliance upon respective video recording of CCTV camera produced in Court in pen-drives and, on their insistence, video clippings of CCTV footages of the incident have also been displayed and watched in the open Court.
31. On viewing both the clippings, it is apparent that both the video footages are of one and the same incident, but with a difference that beginning part of the incident recorded in CCTV footage produced by the State is not there in the CCTV footage produced on behalf of the petitioners. Otherwise, both the video footages are recording of one and the same incident, but apparently recorded by different cameras.
33. It is also noticeable that time of recording in both CCTV footages, with respect to a particular event is different and this difference is of about ten minutes. It is claimed by petitioners that Police did not collect the CCTV footage relied upon by them deliberately, but this plea has been rebutted by the State by producing on record interrogation of Rangzeb @ Auranzeb son of Kabul Hussain and Kabul Hussain @ Tuffail Mohammad, in whose shop CCTV was installed. As per record, Rangzeb @ Auranzeb has CRMPM No.944 to 952 of 2020 ...41...
revealed that his father is running a retail shop on Gulab Garh Chowk, whereas he (Rangzeb) uses to work at home .
and drives a vehicle and as and when his father is not available he uses to sit in the shop and CCTV cameras, installed in their shop, are without recording facility, because they had not replaced the DVR of the cameras, which had damaged long ago and, therefore, they are not having any footage of recording of CCTV camera fixed in their shop. Kabul Hussain has also responded in the same manner with respect to availability of footage of recording by CCTV cameras fixed in his shop.
would definitely hamper the investigation, which is at initial stage and also there is every possibility of tampering with or vanishing the evidence by the petitioners.
46. It is submitted by learned Advocate General that on the basis of CCTV Footage obtained from the house of Maya Ram some photographs have been developed, wherein petitioners Abid, Shahrukh Khan, which clearly established the presence and involvement of Abid, Salamat, Shahrukh, Mobin, Khalid and one Naseem in the incident. It is further submitted by him that process of identifying all persons is undergoing and for that purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much necessary. It is also submitted by learned Advocate General that it may be possible that some of the accused persons may not be visible in the CCTV Footage, however, he submits that it would not lead to the conclusion that petitioners are not involved in commission of offence as CCTV Footage, available with police, pertains to only one part of the incident, whereas, second part of the incident had taken place beyond the reach of the camera of CCTV, in the fields and complainant has clearly named the accused persons in CRMPM No.944 to 952 of 2020 ...52...