Court Cites Lack of Proper Chain of Custody and Invalid Section 65B Certificates for CCTV Footage, Highlights Need for SOP on Electronic Evidence Collection
In a landmark judgment dated 30th October 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) quashed the conviction and death sentence awarded to accused Ramgopal @ Gopal and others in a high-profile honour killing case involving the brutal murder of Ramgopal's daughter Prem and her lover Ganpat Lal. The court emphasized the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken and reliable chain of custody for electronic evidence, including CCTV footage, and underscored the prosecution's failure to comply with statutory requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The case originated from an incident on the night of 21st October 2019, where the deceased were allegedly kidnapped and murdered by Ramgopal and his co-accused due to the couple's inter-caste relationship. The trial court had convicted the accused primarily on the basis of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage from Ramgopal's residence and a petrol pump, along with recoveries made at the accused's instance. Ramgopal was awarded the death penalty, while other accused received life sentences and varying jail terms.
However, upon appeal, the High Court found serious infirmities in the prosecution's evidence. The CCTV footage seized from both the accused's house and the petrol pump was found to be inadmissible due to multiple procedural lapses: the Digital Video Recorders (DVRs) and pen drives containing the footage were seized with significant delay, were neither sealed properly nor deposited into malkhana (evidence locker), and there was no valid certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act certifying the authenticity of the electronic records. Additionally, contradictions in witness testimonies and the absence of expert evidence establishing the integrity and chain of custody of the electronic evidence further weakened the prosecution's case.
The court also scrutinized the recovery evidence, such as pieces of cable allegedly used in the crime, vehicles, and personal belongings of the deceased. It held that these recoveries, mostly from open and accessible places without scientific linkage to the crime, were insufficient on their own to sustain conviction in a circumstantial case where the crucial last-seen evidence was disbelieved.
Further, the court noted discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, particularly concerning timelines and movements of the deceased, and rejected the trial court's acceptance of the case as one of "honour killing" based on uncorroborated assumptions. It also held that an earlier complaint lodged at a different police station, which was withheld from the record, rendered the FIR registered later as hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, casting doubt on the prosecution's case genesis.
In light of these findings, the High Court acquitted all accused and answered the death reference in the negative. Recognizing the casual and lackadaisical approach in handling electronic evidence by investigating officers, the court issued detailed directions for the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to frame and circulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the collection, seizure, preservation, and proof of electronic evidence in conformity with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The SOP is to include provisions for prompt identification and requisition of CCTV footage, forensic copying with hash verification, proper sealing, labeling, malkhana entries, and maintenance of chain of custody registers. The court further mandated periodic training for investigating and prosecuting officers and directed submission of compliance reports within three months.
This judgment reiterates the judiciary's insistence on strict adherence to procedural safeguards in electronic evidence handling to ensure fair trial and uphold justice. It also serves as a cautionary tale on the dangers of relying on evidence that is neither properly preserved nor legally admissible, especially in capital punishment cases.
Bottom Line:
Circumstantial evidence - Honour killing case - Conviction and death sentence set aside - CCTV footage from house and petrol pump held unreliable and inadmissible for want of valid Section 65B certificate and broken chain of custody - Recovery evidence alone held insufficient - FIR held hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. as earlier complaint/inquiry at another police station was withheld - Death reference answered in negative - Directions issued to frame SOP for collection, seizure, preservation and proof of electronic evidence under BNSS, 2023 and BSA, 2023.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 364, 201, 147, 120B, 149; Indian Evidence Act Sections 27, 65B; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 162, 313; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
State of Rajasthan v. Ramgopal @ Gopal, (Rajasthan)(DB)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3009844
