CCTV Without Certificate Inadmissible, DNA Holds Conviction: Punjab & Haryana HC

In a ruling on electronic evidence and capital punishment, the High Court held that uncertified CCTV footage is inadmissible under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, yet upheld a rape and murder conviction solely based on an unbroken chain of forensic DNA evidence and last-seen testimony. Re-evaluating the 'rarest of rare' doctrine in child sexual assault cases, the court commuted the death sentence to a strict 50-year actual life term without remission to neutralize the convict's future threat to society.

A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri delivered the verdict while disposing of a murder reference alongside an appeal challenging the conviction for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 7-year-old girl child.

Analyzing the evidentiary value of CCTV footage where camera owners denied issuing certificate under Section 65B, the Court emphasized compliance with statutory provisions as established in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. ( "[2020] 7 S.C.R. 180; 2020-INSC-453": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 775), clarifying that without original digital devices, secondary digital evidence lacks legal standing. However, the Court affirmed that the prosecution satisfactorily established guilt through last-seen testimony under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and DNA profiling under Section 53A of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court issued the following directions:

"(i) The death sentence awarded under §302 IPC is commuted to Rigorous imprisonment for Life, with the clarification that Pawan alias Moni shall not be released unless he has served a minimum actual sentence of fifty years (50 years), and the fine is enhanced to Rupees fifty lacs [INR 50,00,000/-], which on realization shall be paid as a compensation to the victim’s family. There shall be no imprisonment in default of payment of fine for the reason that fine amount has to be recovered from the convict to be paid as compensation.

(ii) The death sentence awarded under §6 of POCSO Act is also commuted, and the convict is sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for twenty-three years (23 years), and the fine is enhanced to Rupees twenty-three lacs [INR 23,00,000/-], which on realization shall be paid as compensation to the victim’s family.

(iii) Remaining sentences awarded by the trial Court under §§365, 366, & 201 of IPC, are upheld, however, sentence in default of payment of fine is reduced to simple imprisonment for 1 day for each default.

(iv) All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently."

Evaluating the principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( "[1985] 1 SCR 88, pg. 162-164; 1984-INSC-121": 1984 CaseBase(SC) 194), as well as capital sentencing standards in Bachan Singh etc. etc. v. State of Punjab, etc., Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. The State of Gujarat ( "[2011] 1 SCR 829, pg. 835": 2011 CaseBase(SC) 864), and Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "[2012] 1 SCR 1009, pg. 1022; 2012-INSC-100": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 90), the Court, in its reasoning, observed:
"The fact that accused Pawan had committed a penetrative sexual assault with the victim is established by Laadli’s Postmortem Report and is confirmed by the DNA evidence. The chain of custody stands proved, there is no gap in the link evidence, and all these relevant facts clearly establish that the human semen recovered from the victim’s clothes matched with the blood sample of the accused. An analysis of the evidence of last seen, the presence of accused’s DNA on the victim’s clothes, establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was Pawan who committed the rape upon Laadli."

Background

On October 8, 2022, a 7-year-old girl went missing from her village in District Kaithal, Haryana. Her partially burnt body was discovered the following day in a nearby jungle. Investigating authorities arrested the accused based on CCTV footage and gathered blood samples for DNA matching against genetic material recovered from the victim's clothes.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 365, 366, 376-AB, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, awarding death sentences under Section 302 IPC and Section 6 POCSO. On reference for death confirmation and appeal by the convict under the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and relevant provisions of BNSS, 2023), the High Court examined precedents including Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer ( "(2014) 10 SCC 473": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 606), Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh ( "(2018) 2 SCC 801": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 1093), Tomaso Bruno, Mukesh and Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. ( "[2017] 6 S.C.R. l, pg. 23; 2017-INSC-448": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 320), Pattu Rajan v. State of Rajasthan, and Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand. Finding that the act of murder occurred in panic post-assault rather than through long premeditation, the High Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment with a mandatory actual sentence of 50 years without release.

Case Details:
Case No.: MRC-7-2023 & CRA-D-1302-2023
Case Title: State of Haryana v. Pawan alias Moni
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul Mohan, Addl. A.G., Haryana; Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, A.A.G., Haryana; Mr. Karan Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana; Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana; Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate; Mr. K.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate; Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Raghav Grover, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate; Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Advocate; Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 8517