2016 (1) TMI 1509 - HC - Indian Laws

Homicide - Confirmation of the capital punishment imposed - accused pleaded Not Guilty - accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and he denied the same - HELD THAT - All forms of homicide is abhorring because it stifles the life span of an individual artificially against the law of nature. In this case, fortunately for the State and unfortunately for the accused the entire occurrence has been captured by the CCTV cameras installed in the shop and recorded in the DVR (MO-2) on account of which we were able to view it. Normally a scene of crime is re-created in the Court by the oral account of witnesses and the Court draws necessary inferences by a process of deduction from proved facts. Very rarely the Courts get the opportunity to view the actual commission of an offence as in this case. The sentence should not be decided based on the impact the video recordings had on us. Sans the video recordings, we are afraid we would have treated this case as another case of murder for gain, not warranting death penalty. In Sangeeth v. State of Haryana, 2012 (11) TMI 1335 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court has discussed the cases in which death penalty was confirmed/reversed and has held that sentencing should be based on the crime and the criminal. In this case, the manner in which the crime was committed may shake conscience. But there is no material produced by the prosecution to show that the criminal is a menace to the Society. There are sufficient force in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the offence has been committed in a cool, calculated and gruesome manner. The accused could have easily bolted the vault room from outside when Gunaram was inside and taken away as much as he could. There was no necessity to take away the life of Gunaram, if robbery had been the motive. Keeping in mind the macabre nature of the crime, the sentences imposed on the accused should run consecutively and not concurrently. The conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 404 IPC and the sentence imposed thereon are set aside - The conviction of the appellant/accused under Sections 449, 392 and 302 IPC is confirmed - The sentence imposed for the offences under Sections 449 and 392 IPC are also confirmed - The death sentence imposed for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside. Instead, the appellant/accused is sentenced to life imprisonment. We direct that the accused should serve a minimum period of 25 years in prison during which period he will not be entitled to any statutory remission or commutation. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of capital punishment.
2. Conviction and sentencing of the accused.
3. Admissibility and viewing of CCTV footage.
4. Credibility of witness testimony.
5. Recovery of stolen property and its evidentiary value.
6. Procedural irregularities in the investigation.
7. Scientific and legal aspects of CCTV recordings.
8. Sentencing and the application of the "rarest of rare" doctrine.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Capital Punishment:
The trial court imposed a death sentence on the accused for the murder of Gunaram. The High Court reviewed the evidence, including CCTV footage and witness testimony, and ultimately set aside the death sentence, replacing it with life imprisonment. The court directed that the accused should serve a minimum of 25 years without statutory remission or commutation.

2. Conviction and Sentencing of the Accused:
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 449, 392, 404, and 302 IPC. The High Court confirmed the convictions under Sections 449, 392, and 302 IPC but set aside the conviction under Section 404 IPC. The sentences for Sections 449 and 392 IPC were confirmed, and the life sentence for Section 302 IPC was imposed to run consecutively, not concurrently.

3. Admissibility and Viewing of CCTV Footage:
The court noted that the trial court had not played the DVR (MO-2) containing CCTV footage in the presence of the accused. The High Court emphasized the necessity of viewing such evidence to conclude whether a fact has been 'proved' or 'disproved'. The court held that electronic records like Memory Cards, Hard Discs, CDs, and Pen-drives are 'documents' under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

4. Credibility of Witness Testimony:
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Budharam (PW-6), who identified the accused in the shop. The High Court found Budharam's testimony credible, supported by CCTV footage showing him in the shop during the incident. The court rejected the defense's argument that Budharam could not have registered the accused's face in a short time.

5. Recovery of Stolen Property and Its Evidentiary Value:
The recovery of 32 pieces of Gold Covering Chains (MO-1 series) and a T-Shirt (MO-4) from the residence of Jaishankar (PW-13) at the instance of the accused was a significant piece of evidence. The court found the recovery process credible and admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence was corroborated by Sahadevan (PW-27) and Balaji (PW-22).

6. Procedural Irregularities in the Investigation:
The defense argued procedural irregularities in the recovery process and the handling of evidence. The High Court acknowledged minor procedural lapses but found no prejudice caused to the accused. The court emphasized that procedural irregularities do not vitiate the search and seizure unless substantial prejudice is shown.

7. Scientific and Legal Aspects of CCTV Recordings:
The court extensively discussed the scientific and legal aspects of CCTV recordings. It held that CCTV footage is superior to human testimony and is admissible as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court approved the method of sending the DVR to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory for analysis and accepted the expert opinions provided.

8. Sentencing and the Application of the "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine:
The High Court deliberated on whether the case fell under the "rarest of rare" category warranting the death penalty. The court concluded that while the crime was gruesome and calculated, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the accused was a menace to society. Consequently, the death sentence was set aside in favor of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years without remission.

Conclusion:
The High Court modified the trial court's judgment by setting aside the death sentence and imposing life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years without statutory remission. The court confirmed the convictions under Sections 449, 392, and 302 IPC, set aside the conviction under Section 404 IPC, and provided detailed guidelines on the handling and admissibility of electronic evidence, emphasizing the importance of viewing CCTV footage in the presence of the accused. The court also directed the enhancement of investigation charges disbursal powers for police officers.