Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Apart from recording the statement of witnesses, CCTV14 footage of the cameras, which were installed and focused towards the place of occurrence from house No. A-4, Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi belonging to PW-14/Ramesh Chand, in the nature of DVR 15 were obtained and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-32/B). The recovered DVR came to be examined by the FSL 16 expert, namely PW-23/Mr. Vivek Kumar, Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner (Doc) and report Ex.PW-23/A was obtained and the CCTV footage were contained in the DVDs Ex.PW-23/1 to PW-23/3. Later on, PW-44, namely Mr. Rohan Sharma, Jr. F/ACE (CFD), FSL, Rohini was also examined who produced the DVDs of the CCTVs, which were marked as PW-43/PX1 and Ex.PW-44/PX1.

17. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has further been assailed by the appellant on the ground that statements of PW- 3/Prashant Yadav and PW-4/Rahul Rajput were recorded after almost about 25 days of the incident whereas as per the witnesses they have been shown the CCTV just after 1-2 days of the incident. Further, the challenge is made to the authenticity and genuineness of the CCTV footage of the scene of crime on the ground that PW-14/Ramesh Chand denied that any DVR marked as Ex.PW-23/4 was seized or handed over by him to the police; and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that there was any overt or covert act on the part of the accused persons to entertain a common intention; and that there was inordinate delay in registration of the FIR and the investigation by the Police was tardy, lackadaisical and tainted as the names of each of the accused persons were tutored to PW-3 and PW-4 after showing the CCTV footages; and that congression of the accused persons near the shop of A-2/Rinku was a casual one and in ordinary course of events during the day and not indicative of any criminal conspiracy.

31. In the aforesaid backdrop, we revert to the most crucial piece of evidence in the present matter, which undoubtedly is the CCTV footage from the DVR make 'QHMPL H.264' marked as Ex.PW-23/4 seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-32/B) from the residence of PW- 14/Ramesh Chand Vats. Although PW-14 did not support the prosecution case so much so denying making any statement to the IO under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-14/1), however, he did admit that he had installed CCTV cameras at his shop located nearby the place of occurrence and connected to the DVR at his residence i.e. H.No. A-4, Chander Vihar, Palam Extension, Sector-7, Dwarka. PW-14 incidentally happened to be the real uncle of A-4/Choti and obviously being an interested witness, he intended to save the skin of his nephew A-4/Choti and therefore he did not deliberately produce the bill in respect of the DVR and thereby concealing the model number and make of DVR.

32. Be that as it may, it is borne out from the record that PW- 23/Vivek Kumar was initially examined on 09.12.2020 and later on re- called on an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. moved by the State on 30.01.2024, which was allowed vide order dated 02.02.2024 and on 06.02.2024 his testimony vis-à-vis that of PW-44/Rohan Sharma would show that the data had been retrieved from the DVR that was transferred to DVD-1, DVD-2 and DVD-3 which are Ex.PW-23/1 to Ex.PW-23/3 respectively and report Ex.PW-23/A was proven. Although, DVD-1 i.e. Ex.PW-23/1 when played in the Court on 29.01.2024 came out to be blank, it was categorical testimony of PW- 44/Rohan Sharma that DVD Ex.PW-44/PX-1 and DVD Ex.PW-43/ PX-1 were the same DVDs in which the data from DVR Ex.PW-23/4 was retrieved.