In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Krishan Pahal, has expressed strong criticism of the lackadaisical approach of investigating officers in cases involving digital evidence. The judgment was delivered in the case of Saurabh @ Saurabh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24946 of 2024).
The case, which has garnered significant public attention, involves allegations of gang rape, criminal intimidation, and the circulation of indecent videos of a minor girl. The primary accused, Saurabh Kumar, along with a co-accused, is charged under Sections 376DB and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5G and 5M/G of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleges that Saurabh Kumar and the co-accused, Sehban, enticed a minor girl from her school and sexually assaulted her. They are also accused of filming the incident and distributing the video via WhatsApp. The video allegedly surfaced on the mobile device of the victim’s brother, prompting the filing of the First Information Report (FIR) on April 3, 2024. The victim, according to the prosecution, was further blackmailed and threatened by the accused, who subsequently made the video viral on social media platforms.
Sections Involved
Sections 376DB, 506 of IPC; Sections 5G, 5M/G of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act; Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act
Defence Arguments
The defense counsel, Jyoti Bhushan, argued that the applicant, Saurabh Kumar, is innocent and has been falsely implicated to cause harassment and victimize him. The defense emphasized that there is no concrete evidence indicating the applicant’s involvement, as the FIR lacks specific details such as the date and time of the alleged offense. The defense also highlighted that the ossification test placed the victim’s age between 16 to 18 years, and her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code suggested that she might have been a consenting party, despite allegations of rape against the applicant.
Observations and Rulings by the Court
Justice Krishan Pahal, while hearing the bail application, made several crucial observations:
1. Investigative Failures: The court noted a significant lack of diligence by the investigating officer, who failed to provide details about the video evidence purportedly recovered. The officer’s failure to examine the contents of the accused’s mobile phone or verify the gallery contents raised serious questions about the investigation’s credibility.
2. Lack of Vigilance in Handling Digital Evidence: The court decried the “callous approach” of investigating officers who simply take possession of electronic evidence like photographs or videos in a pen drive and then pass it to the Forensic Science Laboratory without proper examination. “The said act seems to be just passing of the buck. This act has to stop,” stated Justice Pahal.
3. Fundamental Rights Concerns: The court underscored that such lapses violate the fundamental rights of both the accused and the victim. It directed the Director General of Police to ensure that all investigating officers are more vigilant in handling digital evidence in future cases.
4. Directives for Improved Procedures: The court instructed the Investigating Officer to submit a personal affidavit detailing the evidence against the applicant related to the video being circulated, including its contents. Furthermore, the court ordered that the Director General of Police issue corrective orders to improve investigative practices in cases involving digital and electronic evidence.
Quotes from the Judgment
Justice Pahal’s sharp remarks on the investigating officer’s approach highlight the court’s stance on the need for procedural integrity and responsibility:
“The Investigating Officers are not vigilant enough in appreciating the evidence regarding the recovery of photographs and videos by electronic means. They shrug off their responsibilities by taking into possession photographs or videos in a pen drive and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic analysis. The said act seems to be just passing of the buck. This act has to stop.”
Court’s Decision
While reserving its final decision on the bail application, the court directed the case to be listed again on September 27, 2024, among the top ten cases. Meanwhile, the court has asked the Registrar Compliance to ensure communication of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) concerned within 48 hours for necessary compliance.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Saurabh @ Saurabh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another
– Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24946 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal
– Applicant’s Counsel: Jyoti Bhushan
– Opposite Party’s Counsel (State of U.P.): V.K.S. Parmar
