Lapses In Crime Scene Recording Harm Trial Integrity: Madras HC

Exposing glaring investigative deficiencies that jeopardize criminal trials, the High Court has granted bail to an accused in a murder case while severely censuring the state police for failing to adopt mandatory audio-visual evidence collection technology.

A single-judge bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi was dealing with an appeal challenging the rejection of bail by the trial court in a case involving alleged offences under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and provisions of Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Court Observations and Directions

Evaluating the procedural infirmities, the High Court highlighted that despite clear statutory mandates under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and state notifications, investigating officers routinely bypass electronic recording protocols. The Court noted that in serious cases involving severe offences, such omissions leave the judicial forum unable to properly ascertain material facts.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The mandate under the BNSS is to ensure technology enabled investigation process. Therefore, in serious offences like murder and sexual offences, the police are mandatorily required to conduct videography of the collection of evidence. The Rules in this regard have also been notified and come into effect. However, the audio-visual recording of the collection of evidence is not being done by the investigation officers, for the reasons best known to them... Such lapses are affecting the quality and integrity of investigations and the Courts also are unable to ascertain the facts of the case."

Addressing the systemic failure, the Court issued specific operational instructions. The Court has following directions:

"Therefore, the Director General of Police, has to take a call on this issue and issue appropriate directions, to ensure that audio-visual recording of the collection of evidence and materials is mandatorily conducted, at least in serious offences."

Background

The case stems from an incident where the appellant allegedly picked a quarrel with the deceased for not acknowledging him, physically assaulted him, and attacked him with a cement stone causing fatal head injuries. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109, and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 by the local police. Following the death of the victim nine days later in the hospital, the charges were altered to include Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 alongside Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, transferring investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The appellant sought bail contending that the deceased sustained injuries due to a fall under the influence of alcohol, highlighting that the alleged murder weapon a cement stone was never recovered despite his 110 days in judicial custody. The prosecution opposed the appeal, asserting the presence of three eye-witnesses to the brutal assault.

Upon examining the case diary, the High Court detected major investigative lapses. The police failed to recover the weapon, omitted photographing the victim's injuries to verify the nature of the trauma, and neglected to conduct audio-visual documentation of the crime scene. The Court noted judicial precedents emphasizing technological adoption, such as Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P ( "(2018) 5 SCC 311": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 1093), Pooja Pal v. Union of India ( "(2016) 3 SCC 135": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 504), and Suresh vs. State of Kerala ( "2025:KER:54366": 2025 CaseBase(KER) 4189), alongside statutory mandates under Section 105 and Section 176(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, and Section 15A(10) of Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which mandatory video recording was deemed crucial as affirmed in Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another. The Court also referred to Sateesh Kumar and another vs. State ( "2019 [2] L.W. (Crl.) 826": 2019 CaseBase(MAD) 5919), Balamurugan vs. State ( "MANU/TN/4902/2020": 2019 CaseBase(MAD) 9613), and Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana ( "(2009) 8 SCC 539": 2009 CaseBase(SC) 837) regarding the necessity of audio-visual recording to prevent witnesses from turning hostile.

In light of the completed investigation, charge sheet filing, and long period of incarceration, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and enlarged the appellant on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties and daily reporting conditions.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026
Case Title: Rahamad @ Rahumankhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Karunanithi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr.V.Shathurthiraja, Government Advocate (for R1 & R2); Mr.P.Yuvaraj Prabhu, Legal Aid Counsel (for R3)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 15090