Truth Must Not Be Lost in the Format of the File— Conviction Based on Uncertified CCTV Footage Is a Travesty of Justice: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Rape- Murder Verdict

Even When Crime Is Heinous, Evidence Must Be Lawful - Trial Based on Illegally Admitted Electronic Evidence Violates Fair Trial Principles - Kerala High Court delivered a significant verdict quashing the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 376(A) and 201 IPC for rape and murder, citing grave evidentiary lapses and violation of the mandatory procedure for admitting electronic records. The Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan held that the entire trial rested on inadmissible secondary electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage, and ordered a retrial confined to proper proof of the electronic record. 
 The Court delivered a powerful reminder: “Truth is the guiding star of every judicial process. But even truth must travel through the gate of legality— an unproven digital record cannot be the foundation of a conviction, however grave the charge.” 
 “The DVR Was Available, But the Court Relied on a DVD— Without Section 65B Certificate, It Is Inadmissible and Unreliable” 
 
The prosecution built its case on CCTV footage that allegedly showed the accused dragging the victim, sexually assaulting her, and attacking her with a hoe near the Indraprastha Hotel. However, instead of producing the primary electronic record (the DVR), the trial court relied on a DVD copy (Exhibit P25), which was not accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 
 The Court held: “The DVD played in court is a secondary electronic record. Without Section 65B certification, it is not admissible. The trial court erred gravely in overlooking this statutory requirement.” 
 The judgment heavily cited Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Gorantyal, reiterating that electronic records must comply strictly with Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. 
“Prosecution Chose a Copy Over the Original—And the Court Let It Happen. This Is Not Mere Irregularity, But 
Prejudicial Illegality” 
 The Court expressed concern that the original DVR (MO4) was available before the trial court but never produced as evidence. Instead, the prosecution played an uncertified DVD in court and then, when that copy failed to work, created another copy mid-trial, again without certification, and had it marked as Exhibit P25. 
 The Court stated: “It is inexplicable why the prosecution and the trial court omitted the primary evidence and relied on uncertified secondary media. This oversight has caused grave prejudice not just to the accused but also to the cause of justice.” 
“Expert Report Is Not a Substitute for Certification— Section 293 CrPC Cannot Cure the Absence of 65B Certificate” 
 The prosecution argued that the DVD was certified by an FSL officer, and hence valid. The Court rejected this, stating: “An expert’s opinion under Section 293 CrPC cannot replace the statutory certificate under Section 65B(4). The video may have been extracted, but without certification, it cannot become evidence of the facts depicted.” 
 The Court emphasized the distinction: “Forensic observation of a DVD is not equivalent to legal certification of its admissibility.” 
“The Trial Collapsed Under Its Own Weight—No Independent Witnesses, No TI Parade, and Weak Scientific Linkages” Beyond the electronic evidence, the Court found other material infirmities: 
No independent witness to the recovery of the hoe (MO1) or other material objects. 
No Test Identification Parade despite the accused being a stranger to key witnesses. 
Lab reports (Exts. P26 and P27) linking DNA and blood were not properly bridged with chain of custody evidence. 
 These omissions, combined with reliance on inadmissible evidence, led the Court to conclude: “This was not a fair trial in law. Both the victim and the accused were failed by a system that rushed without rigor.” 
The Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the case for limited retrial, strictly for adducing electronic evidence in proper legal format, and reassessment of guilt accordingly. 
 The Court directed: “The trial court shall decide the case on the basis of evidence already recorded and the additional evidence to be recorded henceforth, uninfluenced by this judgment.” 
 In one of the most legally consequential decisions this year, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that procedural rigor cannot be compromised even in grave cases like rape and murder. A fair trial is not a privilege of the innocent—it is a constitutional right of every accused. The Court sent a stern message to the entire criminal justice system: “You cannot build truth on a corrupted foundation. And when you do, the walls of justice must fall—not to protect the accused, but to protect the process.” 
 

Date of Decision: 24 March 2025