Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The original CCTV footage, recorded on the hard disc which was taken into the custody and seized, was played in the trial court when Rakesh Bhargava (PW-4) was under examination. At that time, one Ram Milan private operator, who had subsequently deposed as PW- 15 had operated the hard disc and played the same. In his cross- examination, PW-4 testified that he had arranged for an operator, who had come after an hour and thereafter the CCTV footage was played in the factory on 23rd February, 2009 in the computer room in his presence and in the presence of two-three policemen. Others, including his brother and two-three workers were also present. It took about 2 ½ hours to watch the CCTV footage. PW-4 after seeing the CCTV footage was categorical, that Kishan Tripathi could be seen entering the factory, then dragging Sachidanand Jha and hitting and assaulting him. Lastly, the appellant was seen leaving the factory. Head Constable Rajpal Singh (PW-7) affirms that they had seen the CCTV footage and one person who was wearing spectacles had committed the offence. PW-7 then identified Kishan Tripathi, who was present in the court, as the said person. In his cross-examination, PW-7 affirmed that two CCTV cameras; one at the main gate and the other in the basement, were installed in the factory and that the factory owner had identified the culprit in the CCTV footage. PW-7 confirmed that the accused was seen dragging the deceased to the basement, repeatedly giving him kick blows and inflicting injuries with some instrument. Inspector B.S. Rana (PW-

18) similarly proves this version narrated by HC Rajpal Singh (PW-

7) and Rakesh Bhargava (PW-4) that the CCTV cameras were installed in the factory, an operator was called and the CCTV recording was played, whereupon Rakesh Bhargava (PW-4) had identified the perpetrator as Kishan Tripathi. This person was visible and could be seen hitting Sachidanand Jha. PW-18 had then removed the hard disc from the computer system with the help of Ram Milan (PW-15) and sealed the same and they took the hard disc into possession vide seizure memo Exhibit PW7/H.

12. Pertinently, in order to re-assure and verify, we had called for the original hard disc from the malkhana. The same was produced in a sealed cover with court seals. The said seals were inspected by the counsel for the appellant-Kishan Tripathi. This hard disc was attached to a computer by one Neeraj and CCTV footage was played in the Court for our examination and visual viewing. Counsels were also allowed to watch and see the relevant portions of the video files. Files from the said hard disc were copied in two pen drives of 8 GB each marked Exhibits HC-1 and HC-2. Thereafter, the original hard disc was detached and re-sealed in the presence of the Court Master and returned to the Additional Public Prosecutor to be deposited in the malkhana. We had also played the two CDs available on the trial court record on the laptop.

14. The CCTV footage is captured by the cameras and can be stored in the computer where files are created with serial numbers, date, time and identification marks. These identification marks/ details are self generated and recorded, as a result of pre-existing software commands. The capture of visual images on the hard disc is automatic in the sense that the video images get stored and recorded suo-moto when the CCTV camera is on and is properly connected with the hard disc installed in the computer. It is apparent in the present case from the evidence led that no one was watching the CCTV footage when it was being stored and recorded. The recording was as a result of commands or instructions, which had already been given and programmed. The original hard disc, therefore, could be the primary and the direct evidence. Such primary or direct evidence would enjoy a unique position for anyone who watches the said evidence would be directly viewing the primary evidence. Section 60 of the Evidence Act states that oral evidence must be direct, i.e., with reference to the fact which can be seen, it must be the evidence of the witness, who had seen it, with reference to the fact, which could be heard, it must be evidence of the witness, who had heard it and if it relates to the fact, which could be perceived by any other sense or any other manner, then it must be the evidence of the witness, who says who had perceived it by that sense or by that manner. Read in this light, when we see the CCTV footage, we are in the same position as that of a witness, who had seen the occurrence, though crime had not occurred at that time when the recording was played, but earlier.