Absence of Grave Suspicion and Inadmissible Electronic Evidence Warrant Discharge of Public Officers Under Revisional Jurisdiction

The Petitioner, a Director of a manufacturing firm, alleged that officials of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) illegally detained and tortured him in Kanpur (June 2009) and later forcibly abducted him from a hotel in Delhi (November 2009) to extort confessions.

While the Trial Court (ACMM) framed charges under Sections 323, 348, 365, 368, 506, 34, and 120B of the IPC, the Sessions Court (Revisional Court) set aside the order and discharged the accused.

The Petitioner challenged the discharge, claiming the Sessions Court conducted a "mini-trial" and ignored CCTV and MLC evidence.

1. Whether the material on record established "grave suspicion" against the accused officers to justify framing of charges.

2. Whether the electronic evidence (CCTV footage) was admissible in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. Whether the improvements and contradictions in the Petitioner’s testimony were fatal to the prosecution's case at the stage of charge.

The Court applied the principles governing Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC as articulated in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, which mandates that while a judge can sift evidence to find a prima facie case, they must discharge the accused if the material only gives rise to "suspicion" rather than "grave suspicion".

Regarding electronic evidence, the Court relied on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, which overruled Navjot Sandhu to hold that a Section 65B certificate is a mandatory prerequisite for the admissibility of secondary electronic records.

The Court also noted the limited scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under the CrPC, emphasizing restraint unless the lower court's order is perverse.

The High Court found that the Petitioner’s case was marred by significant embellishments and contradictions. Specifically, the Petitioner failed to mention critical allegations of torture in earlier statements, his writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, or during pre-summoning evidence, rendering his later "elaborations" unreliable.

The Court observed that the MLCs lacked the "age of injury," and the absence of any adverse physical report from Tihar Jail or the Duty Magistrate belied claims of brutal beating.

Furthermore, the CCTV footage was ruled inadmissible because it lacked a Section 65B certificate and the producing witness (PW3) was not the author or custodian of the recording.

The Court accepted the DGCEI’s explanation that the officers acted in good faith to serve summons on an evading petitioner, noting that the biological father’s evidence was hearsay and the identification of additional accused years later was suspect.

The Court concluded that the electronic evidence was legally inadmissible and the testimonial inconsistencies were too substantial to sustain a criminal trial. Consequently, no interference was warranted in the Revisional Court's decision and the High Court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the Sessions Court's order of discharge.