Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal Over Tainted CCTV Evidence Certification

The High Court of Gujarat has slammed the door on a murder prosecution's appeal, ruling that electronic evidence extracted via police-typed certificates without technical scrutiny lacks the 'integrity' required for a criminal conviction. This decision reinforces the strict statutory mandate for electronic records, emphasizing that technical witnesses cannot merely act as rubber stamps for investigative agencies in capital cases.
In a verdict delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani, the Court heard an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of an accused charged with murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The State challenged the trial court's decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused after key witnesses turned hostile and electronic evidence was discarded.
Key Takeaways
Integrity Over Formality
Certification of electronic records is not a mere procedural formality; it must reflect actual technical control and verification to be admissible.
Hostile Witnesses Fatigue
When ocular evidence fails due to witness hostility, the prosecution's failure to secure scientific and technical evidence through independent means becomes fatal.
Appellate Restraint in Acquittals
The presumption of innocence is doubled upon acquittal, and appellate courts will not interfere unless the trial court's view is found to be patently perverse.
Strict Adherence to Electronic Evidence Standards
The Court focused heavily on the failure of the prosecution to prove the authenticity of the CCTV footage. Despite the testimony of a technical witness, the Court found the process of extraction and certification deeply flawed. The Court observed that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 must be more than a signature on a police-prepared document.
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not a mere formality. It must identify the electronic record, describe the manner in which it was produced, and be given by a person in a position of responsible control over the device, who can speak to its proper functioning. A certificate drawn up by the police and signed without knowledge of its contents, on the basis of a deposition silent on the very device from which the footage was taken, cannot discharge that burden."
Regarding the scope of interference in acquittals, the Bench relied on the principles laid down in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. ( "2026 INSC 67": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 72), noting that interference should be avoided where the trial court's view is plausible.
Absence of Direct Evidence and Hostile Panchas
Beyond the electronic evidence, the prosecution's case crumbled as the complainant and the deceased's brother, who were expected to provide the link to the motive, turned hostile. Furthermore, the seizure of various articles, including the weapon and the motorcycle, could not be proved as the Panch witnesses did not support the prosecution's narrative.
The Court has the following directions:
"In view of the foregoing, the present appeal sans merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Navsari in Sessions Case No.101 of 2023 stands confirmed. Record and proceeding, if any, be remitted to the concerned Court."
Ratio
An electronic record cannot be considered reliable or admissible if the certification process is controlled by the investigating agency rather than a person in responsible control of the device, or if the chain of custody regarding the extraction and sealing of such evidence is broken. In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court shall not disturb a plausible finding of the trial court unless it is perverse or contrary to law.
Background
The case originated from an incident on July 3, 2023, where the deceased was allegedly stabbed to death in broad daylight over a dispute involving his relationship with the accused's sister. The police filed a charge-sheet under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Gujarat Police Act. The trial court, exercising powers under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, acquitted the accused after finding that the CCTV evidence was improperly certified and the witnesses had turned hostile. The State appealed this decision under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arguing that the medical evidence and the technical extraction of CCTV footage were sufficient for conviction. However, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances.
Case Details:
Case No.: R/Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 2301 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:65449-DB
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Dinesh @ Lot Shravan Sonkar
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Lb Dabhi Additional Public Prosecutor
Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 29374



