Failure to Provide Section 65-B Certificate Renders CCTV Footage Inadmissible: Supreme Court Acquits Chandrabhan

Electronic Evidence Must Comply with Section 65-B or Be Excluded – Supreme Court Reiterates Mandatory Certification Requirement and acquitted Chandrabhan Sanap, who had been sentenced to death for the 2014 murder and rape of a 23-year-old woman, EA. The Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s confirmation of the death sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. A crucial aspect of the judgment was the Court’s categorical rejection of CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution, citing non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

"In the absence of a valid Section 65-B certificate, electronic evidence cannot be admitted in court. The prosecution’s failure to meet this legal requirement renders the CCTV footage inadmissible, thereby breaking the chain of circumstantial evidence," the Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan ruled.

The case, which revolved around the last seen theory and circumstantial evidence, was critically weakened by the exclusion of the CCTV footage. The Court observed that the footage was the foundation of the prosecution’s case, and its exclusion rendered the entire narrative unreliable.

CCTV Footage Excluded for Non-Compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act

The prosecution sought to rely on CCTV footage from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT), purportedly showing the victim and the accused together on January 5, 2014. However, the footage was not accompanied by the mandatory certification under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that electronic evidence, such as CCTV footage, call data records, and digital records, must meet the certification requirements to be admissible in court.

"The law is clear—electronic evidence without a proper certificate under Section 65-B cannot be considered. The prosecution’s failure to submit the certificate means that this evidence must be excluded," the Court held, relying on previous landmark judgments such as Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020).

The Supreme Court rejected the prosecution's attempt to circumvent this requirement by arguing that the footage was exhibited before the trial court without objection. The Court noted that while procedural objections must be raised at the time of admission, non-compliance with Section 65-B is a substantive defect, rendering the evidence inadmissible regardless of whether an objection was raised during the trial.

"High Court Itself Acknowledged That CCTV Footage Was Central to the Prosecution’s Case"

The Supreme Court highlighted that the Bombay High Court had acknowledged the centrality of the CCTV footage to the case. The High Court, while upholding the conviction, stated:

"The CCTV footage obtained by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation and which was put before the trial Court through Prosecution Witness No. 31 is the axis of the whole chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution."

Given this observation, the Supreme Court concluded that once the footage was excluded, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of events leading to the accused’s guilt.

"Courts Cannot Ignore Legal Requirements for Electronic Evidence" – SC Rejects Prosecution’s Arguments

The prosecution attempted to rely on Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), which had suggested that Section 65-B certification was not always mandatory. However, the Supreme Court noted that Shafhi Mohammad had been explicitly overruled by Arjun Panditrao Khotkar in 2020, which reaffirmed Anvar P.V. and held that Section 65-B compliance is a mandatory prerequisite for the admissibility of electronic evidence.

"The judgment in Shafhi Mohammad does not lay down the correct legal position and has been overruled. There is no exception to Section 65-B(4); courts cannot relax this requirement on a case-by-case basis," the Court clarified.

The Supreme Court further noted that despite being aware of the legal requirement, the prosecution failed to rectify the deficiency during the trial. "When PW-38, the Investigating Officer, was cross-examined, he admitted that he was aware of the need for a Section 65-B certificate for electronic evidence. Despite this, the prosecution did not obtain one for the CCTV footage," the Court observed.

"In Criminal Cases, the Burden of Proof is on the Prosecution – Non-Admissible Evidence Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps"

The judgment underscored that in criminal trials, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain, excluding all other possibilities. The failure to comply with evidentiary requirements meant that a crucial link in the prosecution’s case was missing.

"The exclusion of CCTV footage creates a significant gap in the prosecution’s case. In a criminal trial, the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused," the Court ruled.

Impact of the Judgment: Reaffirming Strict Standards for Electronic Evidence

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Chandrabhan Sanap v. State of Maharashtra reinforces the stringent standards for the admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal cases. By reaffirming Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the Court has sent a strong message that procedural requirements cannot be overlooked, especially in cases involving serious charges such as murder and rape.

This judgment will have far-reaching implications for law enforcement and the judiciary, ensuring that electronic evidence is handled with greater diligence and that accused individuals are not convicted based on procedurally flawed evidence.

With the exclusion of the CCTV footage and multiple inconsistencies in the circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove Sanap’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

"The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is acquitted of all charges and shall be set at liberty forthwith," the Court ordered.

This ruling upholds the fundamental principle that no person can be convicted based on evidence that does not meet the legal standards of admissibility. The Supreme Court has once again reinforced the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal trials, ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.

Date of Decision: 28/01/2025