HYDERABAD: CCTV footage is often treated as crucial corroborative evidence in criminal trials, capable of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a case involving the assault of police personnel at Jubilee Hills Check Post, the prosecution’s failure to place such material on record resulted in the acquittal of all four accused.
The incident dates back to February 25, 2021. According to the complaint, Jubilee Hills Traffic Inspector Muttu was on duty at the check post when, around 9 pm, one Meysam Darvish arrived on a motorcycle without a helmet and with a modified silencer causing excessive noise. Police personnel stopped the vehicle, following which Darvish was claimed to have assaulted Home Guard Rathod Tukaram.
It was further alleged that Darvish contacted three associates, who reached the spot and abused and manhandled Inspector Muttu and Home Guard Tukaram. Police constable Mani Nayak was also present at the scene.
Based on Inspector Muttu’s complaint, Jubilee Hills police registered a case under Sections 353 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC against Darvish and the other accused, and subsequently filed a chargesheet.
During trial before the Nampally court, inconsistencies emerged in the prosecution’s evidence. In cross-examination, constable Mani Nayak stated that Tukaram arrived at the spot between 12 and 12.30 am, which contradicted the prosecution’s version that the incident occurred around 9 pm.
Significantly, Tukaram, in his deposition, did not support the prosecution’s allegations and stated that he was not assaulted. The court noted that he did not depose that the accused abused, assaulted or pushed him, as claimed in the complaint.
Another prosecution witness, constable B Nagendra Babu, testified that CCTV footage from the check post was collected, converted into a DVD and handed over to the station house officer. However, the prosecution failed to produce the said material evidence before the court.
Further, during cross-examination, the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector G Shekar, admitted that no independent witnesses were examined and that the General Diary entries of the traffic personnel were not collected.
Observing that the alleged place of occurrence was a busy locality equipped with CCTV cameras, the court noted that despite the availability of such evidence, the investigating agency neither examined independent witnesses nor produced the CCTV footage on record. It also found that key witnesses did not substantiate allegations of obstruction of public duty or criminal intimidation.
In view of these evidentiary lapses and failure of the prosecution to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the court acquitted all the accused of the offences.