2022 P Cr. L J 664
CCTV footage and Call Data Record (CDR)---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Prosecution had relied upon the evidence of CCTV footage and CDR pertaining to the cell phones of accused and had also given considered thought to the admissibility of such evidence---So far as, the CCTV footage was concerned, admittedly, it did not contain the clear visuals of the incident and the facial features of the culprits were also blurred---On that score alone, the evidence of CCTV footage was to be discarded---As regards, Call Data Record (CDR) no person or record keeper of the cellular company appeared in the dock to provide legal sanctity to such evidence, thus it was inadmissible---Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentences of accused.
----Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) report---Significance---DNA was a particle that encrypted the genetic information in all living beings and was the blueprint of an individual---DNA could be obtained from any biological material such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, etc.---Generally, when DNA profile of a sample found at the scene of crime matched with DNA profile of the suspect, it could generally be concluded that both samples had the same biological origin so, in cases where a suspect was identified, a sample of that person's DNA could be compared to evidence collected from the crime scene---Results of that comparison might help establish that the suspect committed the crime---Since DNA of every human being remained same in all areas of its body, it could not be altered or changed in any way, meaning thereby it was effectively a form of evidence, which was resilient to any form of tampering---So, such type of forensic evidence was of great help in criminal cases, where identity of an accused was suspicious.
Explanation of the Passage
This passage discusses the legal significance of different types of evidence in the context of a criminal case:
CCTV Footage:
The passage highlights the limitations of CCTV footage in this specific case.It mentions that the footage lacked clear visuals and couldn't definitively identify the accused.
Due to these limitations, the court deemed the CCTV footage inadmissible.
Call Data Record (CDR):
The prosecution presented CDRs as evidence but failed to introduce a witness from the cellular company to authenticate them.This lack of authentication rendered the CDRs inadmissible in court.
DNA Evidence:
The passage then explains the significance of DNA evidence in criminal cases.It provides a brief explanation of DNA and how it can be used to link suspects to crime scenes.
The passage emphasizes the unique properties of DNA, including its stability and resistance to tampering.
This makes DNA a powerful tool for establishing the identity of individuals and aiding in criminal investigations.
Overall, the passage contrasts the limitations of CCTV footage and CDRs in this specific case with the strong evidentiary value of DNA when properly collected and analyzed. This highlights the importance of using reliable and well-supported evidence in legal proceedings.