Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the copy of video recording or not, makes the discussion of testimony of PW9 and others connected to that fact necessary here.

11.1. PW9 Dr. Punit Jain deposed that he was working as Group Chief, Law & Compliance Officer and also Group Chief, Corporate Affairs Officer in TVTN. He proved certain notices received from the investigating agency on different dates as Ex.PW9/A1 to A5 and his own seven replies of different dates as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW9/B1 to B6. This witness also exhibited certificates U/s 65B of Evidence Act, one of which Ex.PW9/C is undated, and the second one dated 20.12.2017 is Ex.PW9/D. During examination, the witness admitted that the original I-phones which were used as recording device for recording of the sting in question was never provided to the investigating agency. He claimed that it had been sent to U.P. Vidhan Sabha in connection with some inquiry relating to some other sting operation. He even admitted that for the first time, it was through letter Ex.PW9/B6 informed that the original devices were in the custody of U.P. Vidhan Sabha in connection with sting operations of Muzaffar Nagar riots. He claimed that the investigating agency was supplied with raw footage of the sting operation after copying it from the company's server. Meaning thereby that from the I- phones the recording were copied on the company's computer server system and from there it was copied in the DVDs supplied to the investigating agency. The witness also admitted in his cross examination that one Mr. Deepak Sharma was the In-charge of Special Investigating Team of TVTN and In-charge of the computers installed at SIT Department of TVTN. The witness also admitted that the concerned Incharges of SIT and library were the custodians of the computers installed in their respective branches and that the entire set up of TVTN was divided in different department / branches which were headed by their respective functional heads. He admitted that he was not functional head of either the IT Department or the Library Department of TVTN in 2014 and he was fnctional head of the legal department. He claimed that there was a shift system of eight hours in TVTN and according to those shifts, even the functional heads / Incharges used to change. The witness even admitted that vide his letter Ex.PW9/B3, he had informed the investigating officer that the person In-charge of the computers of SIT was Deepak Sharma. When the witness was questioned as to the date on which the DVDs were prepared, which were supplied to the IO, the witness replied that he did not know it and he did not even remember the dates when the recordings were transferred from the original recording devices to the computers of library and thereafter the dates when the recordings were copied from the library computers to the computers of SIT. He did not remember whether the hash value of the recordings was ever provided to IO or not. He could not even recall whether he ever saw the recordings of the sting operations. He specifically admitted that the issues relating to sting operation used to be dealt with by the Editorial Section and the recording device belonged to TVTN only, but did not know as to which department of TVTN used to issue it to the team going for sting operation.