Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: videography in State vs . : 1) Shantanu @ Kala on 31 July, 2018Matching Fragments
30. During cross examination by the defence he denied the State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 12 :
suggestion that contents of DD No.29A are false and fabricated. He also denied the suggestion that DD regarding mobile phone No.9717412423 is also false and fabricated. He denied the suggestion that DD No.29A is ante timed and ante dated.
31. Rishab was examined as PW-17. He was working in Anil Photo Studio shop No.1100, Main Narela Road, Alipur owned by Anil. On 08.06.2017 one police official of PS: Alipur came to the studio and requested him for videography of one field. He reached the police station and from there they reached the field of Hoshiyar Singh. Police stopped the vehicle and four persons Shantanu and three others whose names he does not recollect pointed out places in the said field where there were bones and other articles. He videographed the proceedings. All those four persons are visible in the videography conducted by him. He prepared the CD of the said videography and handed over the same to the police. The certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW17/A. The certificate is Ex.PW17/B. He identified the CD as Ex.PW17/Article-1.
spot. He did not ask Anil to go with the police official and the police officials also did not ask Anil to accompany them. Police did not pay money to him in respect of the work of videography. The amount was paid to Anil in his presence. He used Sony camera for doing videography. The date and time is not reflected in the videography. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely regarding the fact that in the preparation of videography no date and time reflects or that even when the videography is conducted. He did not hand over the memory card of the camera to the police. He denied the suggestion that CD Ex.PW17/Article 1 is false and fabricated document. The police officials came to the studio at 5 pm. They reached police station at about 5:00 or 5:15 pm. They left the police station at about 5:30 pm and reached the field within 10-15 minutes. He denied the suggestion that he is not visible in the aforesaid photographs as he did not visit any place. After conducting the videography he came to the police station and thereafter went to the studio. His signatures were not obtained on any document. He did not prepare the CD himself. He does not remember the name of the person who prepared the CD. He does not remember the date when the CD was prepared. He cannot tell the name of the studio from where the CD was got prepared. That studio is in Narela. The person who prepared the CD had not given any certificate or document regarding the preparation of CD. On the certificate Ex.PW17/B the date is also not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that document State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 14 :
53. During cross-examination by the defence doctor stated that videography was not conducted regarding post mortem of State Vs. Shantanu etc SC No:605/17 : 26 :
deceased. They did not ask IO to make arrangement for the videography. She deposed that the examination of skeleton remains is a long procedure and conducting the videography of long procedure is not feasible. She does not remember as to exactly how much time was taken in conducting the post mortem. She denied the suggestion that she does not remember the time as post mortem was not conducted by them or at the instance of IO they gave the post mortem report in routine manner. She also denied the suggestion that she gave subsequent opinion in routine manner without following the due procedure.
done. According to PW-18 the videography was done from 5 PM to 6.30 PM and the writing work was done in the head light of the vehicle and also the torch and all the documents were prepared on the spot. According to PW-20 the recovery proceedings were started at 5.20 PM and completed around 9.30 PM. The videography was carried out of the entire proceedings till 9.30 PM. According to PW-38, the videography was done from 5.30 to 7.30 PM and the writing work was done near the place where vehicles were parked and not the place where recovery was effected. Ld. Counsel submitted that keeping in view all these facts, the contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, public witnesses not supporting the recovery, even the crime team members not identifying any of the accused clearly show that this recovery was not effected. Even the samples were tampered to create evidence. Ld. Counsel submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged. Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt. It is prayed that accused persons be acquitted.