Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pen camera in Unknown vs The Superintendent Of Police on 25 January, 2022Matching Fragments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The case of the defacto complainant is that the accused had video-recorded, when the petitioner and another staff of the department were taking bath. The petitioner had specifically alleged that the occurrences had taken place on 28.06.2019 and 29.06.2019 in the evening and early morning respectively. The accused had kept his pen camera in his trouser pocket. The second respondent had taken some two years and two months to file the final report. The jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences also. At this stage, this criminal original petition has been filed seeking denovo investigation and also for entrusting the same to the third respondent. Since a number of lacunae had been pointed out in the memorandum of grounds, I called upon the third respondent to file a status report. The third respondent after a careful perusal of the entire materials on record, has confirmed almost all the contentions made by the petitioner. For instance, the original pen camera was handed over by the petitioner even at the time of lodging the First Information Report. This has been duly set out in the First Information Report itself. The investigation officer has prepared a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., as if at the time of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis recording the said statement, pen camera was handed over to the Inspector of Police. This according to the petitioner's counsel would give rise to a doubt as to whether there were two pen cameras. Actually, there is only one pen camera in which the offending shots were taken and they were handed over by the petitioner at the time of lodging the First Information Report itself. According to the petitioner's counsel, the investigation officer never enquired the petitioner or recorded her statement and that the statement had been prepared on his own. This contention of the petitioner's counsel cannot be brushed aside in view of what has been set out above.
5. The investigation officer had not collected the photographs of the victim ladies. Only with such photographs, the forensic lab could have compared the same with the offending shots and confirm if the offending shots are genuine or morphed. The failure on the part of the investigation officer to collect the photographs of the victim ladies definitely goes to the root of the matter. In the same way, the photo of the accused should also have been taken and confirmation should have been obtained as to whether the face of the accused as seen in the shot taken on 29.06.2019 is that of the accused or not. Recoveries made from the accused have not at all been dealt with in the final report. More than anything else, even the sketch and the observation mahazar have not been properly drawn. The investigation officer should have drawn the sketch and mahazar in such a way as to correctly reflect the real position of the place where the victim ladies took bath and from where the trouser of the accused was hung and where the pen camera was fixed in the pant pocket. This is absolutely crucial so as to establish the case of the prosecution.