Subru v. State

Pragya AgrawalCase Summary

Applicability of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the police has recovered the original device

Subru v. State
In the High Court of Madras
Crl. A. 629/2016
Before Justice S. Nagamuthu and Justice N. Authinathan
Decided on January 25, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Applicability of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the police has recovered the original device

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 357A)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 376D, 379, 392, 323, 341 and 506(ii))
  • The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 3, 65B, 114)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The victim and her friend were on their way to a temple. At one place, they stopped for a break.
  • There, the four accused persons brutally gang-raped the victim while they thrashed her friend and tied him to a tree.
  • The four accused persons videotaped the incident and threatened them not to disclose the same to anyone.
  • However, one of the villagers was passing through the area and saw a naked girl lying with four other men. He informed other villages as well as the police.
  • When the trial concluded, the trial court convicted these four accused persons.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel stated that the victim identified the petitioner before the Test Identification Parade (TIP). Hence, this statement should not hold value in the court. Further, he submitted that the copy of video files is not admissible in evidence due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The bench was of the view that it is not mandatory to have a Test Identification Parade in all circumstances. A victim can identify an accused otherwise as well.
  • As for the admissibility of evidence, the police recovered the cellphone containing the memory card. This is an example of primary evidence. Hence, there is no question of complying with Section 65B.
  • The court offered to play two of the videos in the court so that the petitioner’s counsel could comment on the same.

Final Decision

  • The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgement.
  • Further, the court ordered the State Government to provide a compensation of ₹8 lakhs to the victim.