CCTV evidence lacking a credible Section 65B foundation and proven chain of custody is unreliable.

The prosecution alleged that the accused stabbed Dharmendra, who had previously been in a relationship with the accused’s sister, causing his death on 3 July 2023.

The complainant and another brother of the deceased did not support the prosecution at trial.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient.

The State appealed against the acquittal.

The High Court accepted that the death was homicidal but considered whether the accused had been proved to be its author.

Section 302 IPC requires proof that the accused committed the homicide; proof that death was homicidal does not, by itself, establish the assailant’s identity.

Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, electronic evidence must be supported by a certificate that identifies the record, explains how it was produced, and is given by a person able to speak to the relevant device and its proper functioning.

A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain pointing unerringly to the accused and excluding other reasonable hypotheses.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should respect the reinforced presumption of innocence and avoid interference where the trial court’s view is plausible; interference may be justified where the acquittal is perverse or compelling circumstances warrant it, as stated in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67.

For Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, the prosecution had to establish the relevant prohibition on carrying arms and evidence that the accused carried or used a weapon.

The medical evidence established a homicidal death but did not identify the assailant.

The complainant and the deceased’s other brother supplied no evidence linking the accused to the attack, and the alleged motive could not independently sustain a conviction.

The Court held that the CCTV evidence lacked a credible foundation: the technician’s certificate had been prepared by the police and signed by him without knowledge of its contents, did not identify the DVR, and the seizure of the pen drive and continuity of its custody were not established.

The Court therefore found the footage unreliable, and the remaining evidence did not complete the circumstantial chain.

It also found no proof of a District Magistrate’s notification prohibiting the carrying of arms or evidence that the accused carried or used a weapon.

The Sessions Court’s view was plausible and not perverse, so appellate interference was unwarranted.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Sessions Court’s judgment and order dated 9 April 2026 were confirmed.