Tomaso Bruno & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34 , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-A , Section 65-B , Section 114
Electronic record - CCTV Footage - Admissibility in evidence - Adverse inference - Electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65-B is complied with - Non-production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and SIM details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence - It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made - Adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34 , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106
Appeal against Conviction - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Alibi - Important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the courts below is that the offence had taken place inside the privacy of the hotel room in which the accused and the deceased were staying together and only the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence - Defence of appellants that in the wee hours of 4.2.2024 at 4.00 A.M., they (tourists) had gone to see the famous 'Subahe Banaras' and returned back to the hotel room at 8.00 A.M. and found the condition of deceased very serious and immediately informed PW-1 about the condition of their friend and then with the assistance of the hotel staff, deceased was taken to the hospital - Contention on behalf of the prosecution that having taken plea of alibi, the burden is cast upon the accused to prove the defence plea of alibi and the accused had not adduced any evidence to show that they had gone out and visited 'Subahe Banaras' in the early hours of 4.2.2024 repelled - Held that the appellants being foreign nationals who visited India as tourists, it would not have been possible for them to examine any witness either from the hotel or from the place which they are said to have visited as they were tourists in India - In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the statement-explanation offered by the accused the burden was for the prosecution to establish that they remained inside the hotel room from 3.2.2024 till the next day morning 8.00 A.M. in the hotel - CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, it is for the prosecution to have produced the best evidence which is missing - Omission to produce CCTV footage, in our view, which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution case.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34
Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence - There shall be no gap in such chain of circumstances - The courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and the gap in the chain of circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution - The courts below have ignored the importance of best evidence i.e. CCTV camera in the instant case and also have not noticed the absence of symptoms of strangulation in the medical reports - Conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34
Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive will be an important corroborative piece of evidence.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34
Expert Evidence - The courts, normally would took at expert evidence with a greater sense of acceptability - But it is equally true that the courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially if such reports are perfunctory and unsustainable - The purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a final conclusion but such report is not a conclusive one - The Court is expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34
Homicidal Death - Post mortem Report - Death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation - In cross-examination PW-10 doctor stated that there was no injury found in the Superior Cornua of Thyriod bone and no frothy mucous was found in the larynx and trachea - Non recovery of alleged object weakens the prosecution case.
Topic(s)-Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Acquittal