Supreme Court Overturns Death Penalty Conviction Due to Absence of Mandatory Section 65-B Certificate for CCTV Footage: Emphasizes Fair Trial and Procedural Compliance in Capital Punishment Cases”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the appellant’s conviction and the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. It held that the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary standards for electronic evidence, as prescribed by Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court emphasized that procedural lapses, especially in capital punishment cases, cannot be ignored as they compromise the principles of a fair trial.

Facts

1. Background of the Case:
   • The deceased was a 23-year-old woman who boarded a train on January 4, 2014, from Vijayawada to Mumbai.
   • Her father last spoke to her on the same evening while she was on the train. However, she never reached her destination, and her father lodged a missing complaint the following day.
2. Discovery of the Body:
   • On January 16, 2014, a partially burnt and decomposed female body was found near the Eastern Express Highway in Mumbai. The father identified the body based on a ring on the finger of the deceased.
   • The post-mortem confirmed that the death was homicidal, with evidence of blunt force trauma, smothering, and genital injuries.
3. Investigation and Arrest:
   • The prosecution built its case on circumstantial evidence, primarily CCTV footage from a railway station that purportedly showed the appellant with the deceased.
   • The appellant was arrested in March 2014, and the prosecution alleged that he was last seen with the deceased and later attempted to destroy evidence by burning her body.

Issues

1. Was the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution admissible without a Section 65-B(4) certificate?
2. Did the circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and testimonies, establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
3. Were procedural safeguards adequately observed in the investigation and trial, given the capital punishment imposed?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant’s defense raised the following key points:

1. Non-compliance with Section 65-B:
   • The prosecution failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, which is required to validate the authenticity of electronic records.
   • This rendered the CCTV footage inadmissible.
2. Unreliable Chain of Evidence:
   • The footage, retrieved 12 days after the alleged incident, was unreliable due to the DVR’s 12-day data retention period. The prosecution failed to explain how the footage was preserved.
   • The defense highlighted procedural gaps in retrieving and presenting the footage, including the absence of a forensic analysis of the footage.
3. Circumstantial Gaps:
   • The defense argued that the evidence did not conclusively link the appellant to the crime. No witness could confirm the presence of both the deceased and the appellant in the same CCTV footage.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution argued the following:

1. Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence:
   • The CCTV footage, though unaccompanied by a Section 65-B certificate, was central to establishing the chain of events and showing that the appellant was last seen with the deceased.
   • Testimonies from witnesses corroborated the appellant’s presence at critical locations.
2. Procedural Irregularities Should Not Defeat Justice:
   • The absence of a Section 65-B certificate should not invalidate the evidence, as the footage was marked without objection during the trial.
3. Reliability of Post-Mortem and DNA Evidence:
   • The post-mortem findings and DNA analysis established the identity of the deceased and the nature of the crime, which supported the prosecution’s case.

Analysis of the Law

1. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence:
   • Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that electronic evidence, such as CCTV footage, must be accompanied by a certificate from a responsible authority verifying its authenticity.
   • The certificate ensures the integrity of electronic records and their compliance with evidentiary standards.
2. Precedent on Section 65-B:
   • In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the absence of a Section 65-B certificate renders electronic evidence inadmissible.
   • This was reaffirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), which clarified that oral evidence cannot substitute for the certificate.
3. Failure in the Present Case:
   • The prosecution admitted that no Section 65-B certificate was obtained for the CCTV footage. This failure was significant as the footage formed the basis of the circumstantial evidence.
4. Impact of Procedural Lapses:
   • The Court noted that the appellant was facing a death sentence, requiring heightened scrutiny of procedural safeguards to ensure a fair trial.

Precedent Analysis

1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014): Established the mandatory nature of Section 65-B certification.
2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020): Reaffirmed that electronic evidence is inadmissible without certification.
3. Sonu v. State of Haryana (2017): Stressed the importance of raising objections to evidence at the trial stage, but allowed some flexibility in criminal cases involving serious consequences.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Failure to Adhere to Section 65-B:
   • The Court found that the prosecution did not comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing a Section 65-B certificate for the CCTV footage.
   • Procedural lapses, such as the lack of forensic verification and failure to demonstrate a clear chain of custody, further weakened the evidentiary value of the footage.
2. Weakness in Circumstantial Evidence:
   • The Court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses and the failure to conclusively link the appellant to the crime scene.
3. Capital Punishment and Procedural Safeguards:
   • In cases involving the death penalty, procedural safeguards are paramount. The Court emphasized that a fair trial cannot be compromised, especially when the evidence is circumstantial.

Conclusion

The Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, observing that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It remanded the case for retrial, ensuring procedural compliance and a fair opportunity for the appellant.

Implications

1. Strengthening Procedural Compliance:
   • This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving electronic evidence.
2. Fair Trial in Capital Punishment Cases:
   • The ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of fairness and justice, particularly in death penalty cases where the consequences are irreversible.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Quashes Money Laundering Charges: Holds No Prima Facie Case of Cheating or Fraud in Real Estate Dispute Over Delay in Occupancy Certificate and Renovation Obligations