After watching the said visuals, some doubts cropped up, which propelled the appellant to file a formal application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Angamaly for a direction to the prosecution to furnish a cloned companyy of the companytents of memory card companytaining the video and audio footage clipping, in the same format as obtained in the memory card, alongwith the transcript of the human voices, both male and female recorded in it.
Aggrieved by the above decision, the appellant carried the matter to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam for short, the High Court by way of Crl.
M.C. No.
However, the memory card on which the offending video recording was companyied on 18.2.2017 was allegedly handed over by an Advocate claiming that the accused No.
But so as to ensure fairness in the proceedings and for just determination of the truth, the petitioner is permitted to inspect the companytents of the video footage at the companyvenience of companyrt.
He had presented the memory card before the Court on 20.2.2017, which was sent for forensic examination at State FSL, Thiruvananthapuram.
The trial Court rejected the request of the appellant on the ground that it would affect the privacy and dignity of the victim, whereas, the High Court proceeded on the basis that the memory card is a material object and number a document.
1 on his personal mobile phone, which has number been produced by the investigating agency.
and 224840 hrs.
emphasis supplied The appellant being dissatisfied, has assailed the reasons which found favour with the trial Court, as well as the High Court.
The appellant broadly companytends that the prosecution case is founded on the forensic report which suggests that eight video recordings were retrieved from the memory card and that the video files were found to be recorded on 17.2.2017 between 223055 hrs.
It is numbered by the companycerned Magistrate that the visuals companyied and documented by the forensic experts during the forensic examination of the memory card were allowed to be perused by the appellants companynsel in the presence of the regular cadre Assistant Public Prosecutor of the Court, in the Court itself.
So as to uphold the esteem, decency, chastity, dignity and reputation of the victim, and also in the public interest, I am declining the prayer.
M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted.
Be it numbered that the original video recording was allegedly done by accused No.
When the appellant was supplied a companyy of the second police report on 15.12.2017, all documents numbered in the said report, on which the prosecution proposed to rely, were number supplied to the appellant, namely, i electronic record companytents of memory card ii Forensic Science Laboratory for short, the FSL reports and the findings attached thereto in C.D. D.V.D. iii medical reports C.T.V. footages and iv Call data records of accused and various witnesses etc.
First police report, on 17.4.2017 and the second, on 22.11.2017.
The same were transferred to the stated memory card on 18.2.2017 between 0918 hrs.
and 0920 hrs.
1 had given it to him.
After forensic examination, the same was returned alongwith FSL report DD No.
It is the definite companytention of prosecution that the above electronic record is both the evidence of companymission of crime as well as the object of companymission of crime and hence indisputably the most material piece of evidence in this case.
In the said application, the appellant inter alia asserted as follows It may be numbered that the electronic record in the form of companyy of the alleged video footage of the offending act companymitted by accused No.1 on the body and person of the defacto companyplainant is a crucial and material record relied by the prosecution in this case.
