Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court of India, 20 January 2015, 3 judges

Conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence set aside. The prosecution's failure to produce available CCTV footage, the best evidence, raised serious doubt and justified an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

Facts

Three Italian tourists, the two appellants and the deceased, stayed in one room at a hotel in Varanasi. On the morning of 4 February 2010 the deceased was taken to hospital and declared brought dead; the post-mortem reports gave asphyxia due to strangulation as the cause of death. The appellants said they had gone out at 4 a.m. to see 'Subahe Banaras' and found him unconscious on their return. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and the Allahabad High Court affirmed. The hotel had CCTV cameras, and the manager and investigating officer said they had seen the footage, but it was never produced.

Questions before the Court

Whether the prosecution could rely on Section 106 of the Evidence Act without proving that the accused remained inside the hotel room at the relevant time.
What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to produce the CCTV footage and other available evidence.
Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.

What the Court held

To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must first establish that the accused were present in the room at the relevant time. Given the appellants' explanation, the burden was on the prosecution to show they stayed inside.
CCTV footage was the best evidence of whether the accused left the hotel. Its omission raised serious doubts, and the courts below erred in relying on oral evidence of witnesses who claimed to have seen it.
Non-production of CCTV footage, call records and SIM details was not mere faulty investigation but withholding of best evidence. This was a fit case for an adverse inference under Section 114(g), which is a permissible, not a necessary, inference.
Electronic records are admissible if proved as required by Section 65B, and such evidence greatly helps investigation and prosecution.
The motive evidence was an improvement at trial, and the medical evidence of strangulation was doubtful. The chain of circumstances was incomplete, so the conviction was set aside and the appellants were ordered to be released.

Why it matters

The judgment treats the failure to collect and produce available electronic evidence such as CCTV footage as withholding of the best evidence, not a mere lapse in investigation, and allows an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g). It also holds that, to invoke Section 106, the prosecution must first establish that the accused were present in the room at the relevant time.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, it is for the prosecution to have produced the best evidence which is missing. Omission to produce CCTV footage, in our view, which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution case.”

R. Banumathi J.Page 15 of the judgment

“Non-production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made.”

R. Banumathi J.Page 18 of the judgment

“With the advancement of information technology, scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is to pervade the methods of investigation. With the increasing impact of technology in everyday life and as a result, the production of electronic evidence in cases has become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or the liability of the defendant.”

R. Banumathi J.Page 16 of the judgment

“Notwithstanding the fact that the burden lies upon the accused to establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, prosecution in possession of the best evidence-CCTV footage ought to have produced the same. In our considered view, it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced.”

R. Banumathi J.Page 19 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 109 (NCRB correspondence table)
Section 114(g), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 119 (NCRB correspondence table)
Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 63 (NCRB correspondence table)
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 103 (NCRB correspondence table)

Case and bench

Parties: Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of U.P.
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2015 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1156/2013)
Decided: 20 January 2015
Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment written by R. Banumathi J.

Questions on this case

2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.