VAIJINATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing for some time, when this Court expressed that this Court is not inclined to grant the relief, as claimed in the Criminal Appeals, the learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw both the Criminal Appeals. Leave granted. Both Criminal Appeals stand disposed of as withdrawn. No order as to costs.

(2.) During the course of hearing, learned APP submitted that CCTV footage is collected by Police showing that the deceased was last seen in the company of appellants and that will be used as piece of circumstantial evidence. She submitted that pen drive containing CCTV footage was collected by Police during the course of investigation from Manager of the Hotel. She submitted that when pen drive was collected, the certificate of the Manager, who was controlling the CCTV system, was collected on 21-08-2018. She submitted that hard disc was not collected of the computer system controlling CCTV. She submitted that pen drive is sent to Expert for getting opinion regarding possibility of tampering etc. She also submitted that Investigating Agency shall collect the photographs of the persons captured by the CCTV camera through Expert. She showed to this Court the covering letter addressed to Director of Forensic Science, in which various requests are made as under :- (i) to compare the CCTV footage with articles like full shirt of accused Udhav Rakh with persons appearing in the CCTV footage. (ii) to compare the Jean pant taken by Police from the person appearing in the footage like Udhav Rakh, (iii) to compare the shirt taken by the Police from the person appearing in the footage like Vijay Hange. A similar request is made in respect of other clothes in relation to other persons. The photographs of accused persons are also sent to the Expert, which are taken from different angles. A request is made to the Expert to ascertain as to whether four wheeler appearing in the CCTV footage is having number, particular number, given in the requisition letter. One another request is made to give opinion as to whether the pen drive containing data was from the original electronic record of CCTV footage. The aforesaid requisition letter given by Officer of the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur shows that there are many misconception in the mind of the Police Officers. First, the contents of the original electronic record, hard disc of CCTV system, which could have been easily seized, was not done. The investigating agency will now be acting on the basis of pen drive in which some video recoding is down loaded and only after opinion as sought is received.

(3.) Whenever any electronic record of like nature is to be taken over, it is necessary for Police Officer to take the record under Sec. 65B of Evidence Act and seize it in presence of panch witnesses. The record like transcript of such record needs to be prepared by the Police Officer in presence of panch witnesses at the same time [1](See para 24 of the Chapter VI of Criminal Manual). If subsequently, Police Officer wants to prepare transcript, then the same panch witnesses need to be used and in their presence material can be opened and transcript of the footage can be made. Invariably, such transcript needs to be prepared on the first occasion when material is to be seized by the Police. Such material is always necessary as the Court wants to go through the contents of CCTV footage, even at the time of consideration of bail application.