Kerala High Court
Aji vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024
2024:KER:83377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1218 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO.210/2024 IN S.C. NO.303
OF 2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, ADOOR
REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONER IN CRL.M.P./ACCUSED IN SC:
AJI
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. SATHY AMMA, AJI BHAVANAM, MANTHUKA, KULANADA VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689503
BY ADV RESMI NANDANAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN CRL.M.P./COMPLAINANT IN S.C.:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SR PP - RENJIT GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83377
Crl.R.P. No. 1218 of 2024
2
"C.R"
ORDER
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed
under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated
30.09.2024 Crl.M.P. No.210/2024 in S.C. No.303/2021 on
the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Adoor. The
revision petitioner herein is the accused in the above
case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, at the
time of admission. Perused the order impugned and
relevant materials available.
3. In this matter, Crl.M.P No.210/2024 has been
filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in S.C.
No.303/2021 before the trial court, where the prosecution
alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections
447 and 354 of IPC and under Sections 8 read with 7 and
2024:KER:83377
12 read with 11(i) of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act and sought for the relief to view the
pendrive containing CCTV visuals on 13.03.2021 and
14.03.2021. In fact, copy of the same was produced in
this crime as directed by this Court as per the order dated
24.06.2022 in W.P.(Crl). No.366/2022. The learned Special
Public Prosecutor appeared before the Special Court and
opposed the application, mainly contending that original
CCTV visuals are with the petitioner and examination of
the pendrive is not necessary.
4. While addressing the challenge and dismissing
the petition, the learned Special Judge observed in
paragraph No.7 of the order as under:
Thus, the pendrive produced before
Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court-1, Adoor,
which is a copy taken from the DVR of
CCTV at the house of the accused, and the
pendrive produced before this court in this
case, which is a copy taken from the
pendrive before Judicial 1st Class
Magistrate Court-1, Adoor, contain only the
2024:KER:83377
CCTV visuals dated 14.03.2021 and both
those pendrives did not contain the CCTV
visuals dated 13.03.2021, the date on
which first incident took place. According
to petitioner, the CCTV at his house has
coverage almost all over his compound.
But, as per the prosecution records, the
second incident at 7.00 am on 14.03.2021
took place at the courtyard of the house of
CW1, which is out of coverage of the CCTV
camera at the house of the petitioner.
Hence, the examination of pendrive
concerned, which is not accompanied with
certificate U/S.65B(4) of the Indian
Evidence Act, will not serve any purpose,
This point is found against petitioner.
5. Now, the grievance advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, the allegations against
the petitioner are false and earlier, another case was
registered vide S.C. No.715/2018 on the files of the
Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram at the instance of
the same defacto complainant, which ended in acquittal.
Accordingly, she pressed for the relief sought for.
2024:KER:83377
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed
interference in the impugned order and submitted that
the original CCTV visuals are with the petitioner and
therefore examination of the pendrive is not necessary.
7. On perusal of the order impugned, it was
observed by the learned Special Judge that, the pendrive
did not contain the CCTV visuals on 13.03.2021, but the
same contains visuals on 14.03.2021. The learned Special
Judge found that, the incident at 7.00 am on 14.03.2021
took place at the courtyard of the house of CW1, which is
out of coverage area of the CCTV camera of the house of
petitioner. Hence, examination of the pendrive concerned
was not necessary.
8. Thus, the question arises is whether the Special
Judge is justified in denying the petition filed by the
petitioner to view the CCTV visuals, which are part of
prosecution records, for which access to the accused is
part of fair trial? Adverting the grounds stated by the
petitioner, the minimum prayer sought for by the
2024:KER:83377
petitioner is to view the CCTV visuals, to defend the case.
The right of the accused to defend a case is a salutary
right and therefore the accused has a right of access to
the documents including digital documents (excluding the
same contains privacy of the victim as held in
Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala [AIR
1996 SC 1393]). Thus, such a right could not be denied
and such denial is not fair trial. But, admissibility of the
CCTV footage produced in pendrive, without certificate
under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, can be decided by
the learned Special Judge, on merits following the law on
the point. Viewing so, the stand taken by the learned
Special Judge denying the same is not justifiable and the
same requires interference.
9. Therefore, the order impugned stands set aside
and the learned Special Judge is directed to permit the
petitioner and his counsel to view the CCTV visuals
available on 13.03.2021 and 14.03.2021, if the same also
are available, by fixing a time before just the start of trial
2024:KER:83377
or during trial, so as to defend the case by the petitioner,
without fail.
In the result, this revision petition stands
allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
SK
2024:KER:83377
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1218/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2024
Annexure A2 THE FREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2024 IN
