Electronic Evidence and Discovery are Valid Despite Minor Discrepancies if the Chain of Circumstances Establishes Guilt beyond Doubt.

The Appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his neighbor’s wife under Section 302 and Section 452 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on January 16, 2016, the Appellant assaulted the deceased with a knife in her home

The Appellant’s defense was that he heard cries, saw an unknown assailant, and chased him, but failed to catch him

Blood-stained clothes and a knife were recovered at the instance of the Appellant from a concealed location

CCTV footage showed only the Appellant running, contradicting his claim of chasing an unknown person

A neighbor (PW-9) testified to an oral dying declaration made by the deceased naming the Appellant

The Appellant challenged the conviction based on CCTV discrepancies, unreliable recovery, and the medical impossibility of a dying declaration

1. Whether the discrepancy in CCTV timing and the non-seizure of the DVR vitiate the electronic evidence

2. Whether the recovery of the weapon and clothing under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was legally valid despite occurring in a public place

3. Whether the oral dying declaration to PW-9 was credible given the medical evidence and delay in recording her statement

4. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 452 (House-trespass) of the IPC

It relied on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of information leading to discovery, noting that concealment in a public place constitutes "exclusive knowledge"

It applied Section 65B of the Evidence Act for electronic records, holding that technical guidance from police in preparing the certificate does not invalidate it

Finally, it followed the principle that a dying declaration is admissible if the victim’s capacity to speak is not medically ruled out, distinguishing Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Court rejected the challenge to the CCTV evidence, reasoning that a time discrepancy of two hours is a mere arithmetical error and the footage's failure to show a second person (the alleged assailant) completely demolished the Appellant’s "chase" narrative

Regarding the recovery, the Court held that while the location was public, the fact that the knife and baniyan were concealed under plastic and cement bags proved the Appellant's "exclusive knowledge" under Section 27

The Court upheld the oral dying declaration to PW-9, noting that the medical witness (PW-16) did not prove the vocal cords were damaged, thus speech was possible

The Court found the Appellant’s conduct incriminating: he provided no explanation for the bloodstains on his clothes in his Section 313 statement and gave contradictory versions regarding the disposal of the weapon

The Court held that minor inconsistencies in recovery and CCTV timestamps do not override substantive evidence of guilt

The appeal was dismissed, and the Judgment and Order dated June 27, 2024, convicting the Appellant to life imprisonment and fine, was upheld