Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of U.P.
Background
Two Italian tourists and a third Italian national (the deceased, Francesco Montis) checked into a Varanasi hotel in early February 2010. After a night during which the three stayed in their room, the deceased was found unconscious the next morning and was declared "brought dead" at hospital; post-mortem reports recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation. The two surviving companions were tried and convicted of murder by the trial court, and the Allahabad High Court confirmed the conviction, relying on circumstantial evidence including that the accused were alone with the deceased in the room overnight.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that although the hotel had CCTV cameras covering the relevant areas, the prosecution never produced the CCTV footage in court, instead relying only on witnesses' oral claims about what the footage showed; the Court held this withholding of the "best evidence" justified drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. The Court also found that the post-mortem evidence was inconsistent with typical symptoms of strangulation, that no weapon or blunt object was recovered, and that key prosecution testimony (about a "love triangle" motive) had been improved upon at trial and was absent from the witnesses' original police statements. Concluding that the chain of circumstantial evidence had serious gaps and did not exclude the possibility of innocence, the Court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt, set aside the conviction, and ordered their release.
Lesson Learnt
When police or prosecutors have access to CCTV footage or similar primary electronic evidence, failing to produce it in court, and instead relying only on witnesses describing what it allegedly showed, can be fatal to a criminal case; courts can and will draw an adverse inference against a party that withholds the best available evidence.