LexSHAFHI MOHAMMAD versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R. SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2302 of 2017) APRIL 03, 2018 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Investigation – Use of videography on the scene of crime – Videography of crime scene during investigation is of immense value in improving administration of criminal justice – Technology is a great tool in investigation – By videography, crucial evidence can be captured and presented in a credible manner – Notwithstanding the fact that as of now investigating agencies in India are not fully equipped and prepared for the use of videography, the time is ripe that steps are taken to introduce videography in investigation, particularly for crime scene as desirable and acceptable best practice as suggested by the Committee of the MHA to strengthen the Rule of Law – Therefore, the Centrally Driven Plan of Action prepared by the Committee and the timeline is approved – It is directed that with a view to implement the Plan of Action prepared by the Committee, a Central Oversight Body (COB) be set up by the MHA forthwith – Suggestions of the Committee in its report may also be kept in mind – The COB will be responsible for further planning and implementation of use of videography – Central Government is directed to give full support to the COB and place necessary funds at its disposal – The COB may issue appropriate directions so as to ensure that use of videography becomes a reality in a phased manner and in first phase of implementation by 15th July, 2018, crime scene videography must be introduced at least at some places as per viability and priority determined by the COB – The suggestion that funding for this project may be initially by the Centre to the extent possible and a central server may be set up, may also be considered by the COB – There is need for a further direction that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish report of its observations – The COB to issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest. Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539 : [2009] 11 SCR 470 – followed. [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1096 1096 A B C D E F G H 1097 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 744 : [2015] 7 SCR 814 – relied on. Ram Singh and Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) Supp SCC 611 : [1985] Suppl. SCR 399; Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329 : [2010] 2 SCR 396; Tomaso Bruno and anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178 : [2015] 1 SCR 721; Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 : [2012] 8 SCR 295; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79 – referred to. R. v. Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464; R v. Robson (1972) 2 All ER 699 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2009] 11 SCR 470 followed Para 9 [1985] Suppl. SCR 399 referred to Para 9 [2010] 2 SCR 396 referred to Para 9 [2015] 1 SCR 721 referred to Para 9 [2012] 8 SCR 295 referred to Para 9 [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79 referred to Para 9 [2015] 7 SCR 814 relied on Para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2302 of 2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2014 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2009. WITH SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9431 of 2011 and 9631-9634 of 2012. ANS Nadkarni, ASG, Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Dr. Arun Mohan, (AC), Jayant Bhushan, (AC), Y. P. Adhyaru, Sr. Advs., Rituj Chopra, Ketann Paul, Tushar Bhushan, Ms. E. R. Sumathy, Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Manjakini Singh, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Zoheb Hussain, Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Salvador S. Rebello, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Ms. Sneha Prabhu Tendulkar, Amogh Prabhu, B.V. Balram Das, Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, Shyam Sundar Rai, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Manjakini Singh, Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Anuradha SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A B C D E F G H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R. Mutatkar, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Advs. for the appearing parties. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: O R D E R SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017 1. Use of videography of the scene of crime is the subject matter of consideration herein. We may note the proceedings in the case on earlier hearings. In order dated 25th April, 2017, it was observed: “Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.