Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SINGH 2026.02.24 16:02:21 +0530 hard disk remained with the IO in open condition. Therefore, the sanctity of the CCTV footage and the chain of custody is completely broken. They have further contended that the alleged certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act is not a certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act because firstly, it does not fulfill the requirements of section 65B of Evidence Act. Secondly it does not even state the medium upon which the CCTV footage was copied. The forwarding letter, Ex.A-142, stated that what was being sent to the SHO was the CCTV footage, CD and the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act with regard to the said CCTV footage. It also stated that the CD was enclosed. That means that the alleged certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, which was Ex.A-143, was not the certificate in respect of the hard disk, which had been exhibited during the testimony of PW24 as Ex.PW24/Article-1. They have further contended that as PW24 had merely scientifically examined the hard disk, the marking of exhibit on hard disk in her testimony was only for the purpose of identification and this hard disk could only have been proved by the maker of the article who never stepped into the witness box. Therefore, in absence of any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, the video footage is inadmissible and cannot be looked into by the court. 5.5 Countering it, ld. SPP has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, Crl.

6.30 It has been contended by ld. SPP that the requirements of law have been met as there is a certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act which was admitted by the accused and was exhibited as Ex.A-143. Therefore, the electronic evidence has become admissible and is to be read.

6.31 On the other hand, ld. counsels for accused have contended that the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act (Ex.A-143) is no certificate in the eyes of law.

6.32 I have considered the rival submissions on this certificate being a proper certificate as required u/s 65B of Evidence Act. 6.33 Before proceeding upon this issue, it is to be observed that has been a serious lapse on the part of the IO, who as per his testimony, had received the CCTV footage in a hard drive on 21.03.2020. However, till 01.05.2020, he neither sealed it nor seized it FIR No. 36/20 SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 48 of 60 PARVEEN Date: 

                                                     SINGH     2026.02.24
                                                               16:05:56
                                                               +0530

through a seizure memo. As per the law, chain of custody of evidence is required to be maintained properly so that the sanctity of the evidence is maintained. However, the IO failed to do so and kept the hard drive in open condition and only sealed and seized it on 01.05.2020. The reason given by the IO for not sealing and seizing the hard drive immediately on its receipt was, that he did not do so because, there was no certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act accompanying the hard drive. However, even on 01.05.2020, when the IO had sealed this hard drive, seized it and deposited in the malkhana, he did not have any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as according to the prosecution's own case, it was received subsequently. 6.34 That being the case, the explanation given by the IO for not sealing, seizing and depositing the hard drive in malkhana is not inspiring confidence.

6.43 Therefore, in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar PV (supra) and Arjun Panditrao (supra), secondary electronic evidence, in absence of any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, is inherently inadmissible because, the admissibility of such evidence is completely dependent upon a valid certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act.

6.44 Even in Sonu @ Amar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:-

27. It is nobody''s case that CDRs which are a form of electronic record are not inherently admissible in evidence. The objection is that they were marked before the Trial Court without a certificate as required by Section 65B (4). It is clear from the judgments referred to supra that an objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 56 of 60 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date: