New Delhi: A court, while acquitting all surviving accused in a 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, observed that it was “a sad situation” when failure to produce a valid certificate led to the exclusion of crucial electronic evidence.Flagging that investigating officers are often “not conversant” with the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, additional sessions judge Parveen Kumar Singh directed that the Delhi Police commissioner be apprised of the lapses to “ensure electronic evidence was collected, authenticated and placed on record in accordance with the law” by investigators.“More often than not, certificates under Section 65B of IE Act as furnished by the prosecution do not satisfy the statutory requirements,” the judge observed, noting that similar shortcomings had surfaced in other riots cases.Section 65B governs the admissibility of electronic records, including CCTV footage, as evidence. It requires a certificate identifying the record, detailing the device used to produce it and certifying that the computer system was functioning properly.“Investigating officers are… often unable to scrutinise the certificates furnished to them to ascertain whether these certificates meet the requirements… and they do not insist upon submission of a proper and legally complete certificate,” Singh noted.An FIR was registered on Feb 25, 2020, following a PCR call about an armed mob allegedly assembling in Gali No. 13, Brahmpuri, and resorting to vandalism and firing. The prosecution claimed that CCTV footage of the riots was shown to the injured and other witnesses, following which three people were identified as rioters.The judge held that the CCTV footage was inadmissible because its accompanying certificate failed to meet statutory requirements. He also flagged inconsistencies in a witness’s account of when he was shown the footage.Since the witness’s identification of the accused was entirely based on the inadmissible footage, his testimony could not be treated as that of an eyewitness. With this evidence excluded, the prosecution failed to prove its case, entitling the accused to the “benefit of doubt”.
Discover more from updatview
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
