Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Based on the statement of PW3, a first information report (Ex.P5) was registered in Cr.No.68/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. PW3 claimed that he had recorded the scuffle between the accused and the deceased on his mobile phone. The Samsung mobile phone which contained the video recording of the scuffle between the accused and the deceased was seized. The memory card in the mobile was also seized. It is stated that the video in the mobile was played and the same was captured in a digital camera and the videos were copied onto three CDs. Since PW3 and PW4 gave their statements saying that the accused had abused the deceased taking his caste, the Tahsildar sought and obtained information from the Deputy Commissioner that the deceased belonged to schedule caste. The postmortem report indicated the following external and internal injuries:

30. The seizure of the mobile phone and the memory card from PW3 is proved by PW1 and also by the evidence of PW3. The phone and memory card at MO.7, MO.7(a) respectively were secured from the trial Court. The mobile phone could not be operated since the battery was bloated. However, we found from Exs.P8 to 10 which was played in the Court and we found a man with his back to the camera and handling a towel strewn around the one who was lying on the ground. We also saw that the man sitting on the ground was trying to wake up the man who was lying on the ground. The video footage found in CDs at Exs.P8 to 10 would have been outrightly rejected as inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the memory card - MO.7(a). PW3 identified the video at Exs.P8 to P10 as the one that he had shot on his mobile. Likewise, PW8 who is the witness who saw the videograph in MO.7, MO.7(a) being copied into Exs.P8, 9 and 10 also identified the video as well the accused and the deceased. Even if Exs.P8 to 10 are not considered, the ocular evidence of PW3 and the other witnesses prove the offence beyond doubt.

31. The memory card seized as MO.7(a) is itself primary evidence which does not require any certification under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The Apex Court in a path breaking Judgment reported in P.Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep vs State of Kerala reported in 2019 SCC online SC 1532 held as follows:

"55. In conclusion, we hold that the contents of the memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial. However, in cases involving issues such as of privacy of the complainant/ witness or his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial".

33. The question whether a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory for production of electronic evidence is under examination before the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailask Kushanrao Gorantyal and others wherein the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer and others reported in 2014(10) SCC 473 relied upon by the counsel for the appellant came up for re-consideration. Be that as it may Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is designed to meet a definite purpose namely to ensure that there is no tampering, alteration, transposition, excision etc., in the process of producing electronic evidence from a source. However, if the source itself is capable of being produced in a court of law, the question of it requiring a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act would not arise. It is not the case of the accused that the memory card - MO.7(a) was not seized or marked. It is not even his case that the memory card did not contain the recording and it is not even his case that the card was not installed in the mobile phone when it was seized. In the absence of any material that could generate doubt about the credibility of MO.7(a), the production of the memory card, which is in itself the primary evidence, non-production of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is not fatal to the case.