HC favours digital evidence for vehicle identification

In a significant ruling aimed at addressing the mounting issue of seized vehicles languishing in police stations for years, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that retaining vehicles in police possession for prolonged periods “is not going to serve any purpose.” The Court said the solution lays in recording high-quality videos and photographs of the vehicle, which could then be shown to victims or witnesses for identification.

“The solution is to record a video of the vehicle and to play the same to the victims/witnesses, so that it can be easily identified. Needless to say, digital evidence can be stored indefinitely simply by upgrading the technology,” the Bench observed.

The court also ordered the forwarding of the judgment to all judicial officers across Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. At the onset, the Bench made it clear that the ruling “deals only with the release of vehicles and none else, and that too only those vehicles which are not required to be confiscated under any Statute or Judicial Orders.”

“This court earnestly believes that the district judiciary, while adjudicating the applications for the release of vehicles which are not required to be confiscated under any Statute or judicial orders, shall not reject the applications for release except by mentioning the reasons and distinguishing the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, and the observations made in this order. Needless to say, while allowing the application for release, it shall be open to refer to this order,” the Bench asserted.

The directions came as the Bench set aside orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram refusing release of a car allegedly used in an assault case. The Bench ordered the vehicle’s release would be conditional on compliance with specific steps within 60 days.

Among the conditions prescribed, the Court mandated that a forensic examination and mechanical inspection of the vehicle be conducted, if required, by the investigating agency. It directed that photographs of the vehicle be taken from all angles, including close-ups of the chassis and engine numbers, with copies made available to the Court, the investigating officer, the claimant, and the accused.

Alternatively, the Court permitted the preparation of high-quality video recordings “from all directions, also from opening the bonnet and cabin, including chassis number and the engine number,” to be stored in sealed digital devices supplied by the petitioner and uploaded on the investigating agency’s official webpage.

The petitioner before the Bench was further required to file an affidavit establishing ownership or authorization to seek release of the vehicle. The Court ordered that the original registration certificate be returned to the applicant after retaining an authenticated copy for record. It also clarified that, subject to clearance of hypothecation, the vehicle’s seizure “shall not be construed as any binding, obstruction, or hindrance in the ownership rights of the registered owner of the vehicle, or its subsequent purchaser.”

The Court further made it clear that the photographs and recordings “shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under Section 497(4) of the BNSS, 2023.”

It warned that the order “is subject to compliance within sixty days, failing which it shall eclipse and shall stand being recalled automatically on the 61st day” under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Elaborating on the law, the Court held that criminal courts have the authority to permit release of case property even pending inquiry or trial. “When the Court finds that it is no longer necessary to keep the case property under the custody, it had to return the same to the person who is competent to get it,” the order stated.

Referring to the Magistrate’s reasoning that the vehicle could not be released as co-accused were yet to be arrested, the Court posed a series of questions to underline the impracticality of indefinite seizure. “If we assume that the co-accused are never arrested or arrested after a considerable time, would it be justifiable to keep the vehicle with the police for ages?” the Bench asked.

It went on to reason: “If the incident had taken place in a metro or a plane, or by firing from the door of a train, would such vehicles be seized, and hypothetically if yes, for how many years simply because the accused is not available or cannot be arrested?”

The Court extended the analogy to refer to the livelihood implications for the poor: “Had the incident taken place in a battery-operated rickshaw, usually driven by people with meagre means, or in a taxi, which is hypothecated and monthly installments of loan and interest have to be paid… should the livelihood of such a person be put at stake simply because the incident/accident had taken place in their vehicle?”

The Court also took a broader view, noting the ecological and economic cost of leaving vehicles to decay in police custody. “If the vehicle is kept in a police parking lot, its value would depreciate, it would rust and decay… making it impossible for any person to identify the vehicle,” the order noted.

It observed, “At the time the vehicle was produced, so many carbon emissions occurred in the process, during extraction, and through rollout from the production line, and immense damage to the planet has already been done.”

The Bench further said that keeping such vehicles parked for years “would adversely affect livelihoods, push owners into debt, and impact the banks that had financed the vehicles.”

“The open spaces in and outside the police stations have abundant seized vehicles,” it noted, adding that “because of the perennial exposure to the Sun, dust, rain and storms, it would be challenging for a person to assuredly gauge about its involvement or non-involvement” at the time of trial.

The Court concluded that “the remedy does not lie in keeping vehicles parked at police stations, but in resorting to digital evidence.”