ADVERTISEMENT
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Savitri Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11008) on 25 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:11008]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 923/2023
Savitri Devi D/o Lt. Bacchana Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
W.no. 52, Sueashiya, Hanumangarh Junction, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport
Section, Through Director (Transport), Transport Bhawan,
1 Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001.
3. Assistant General Manager (Administration), Suratgarh
Bikaner Toll Road Company Pvt. Ltd., Hindore Toll Plaza,
Rajiasar, Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable-
25/02/2026
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner who is mother
of the accused, seeks a series of directions under the
provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
address various grievances regarding the criminal
proceedings initiated against her son under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The
petition raises serious concerns about the false implication of
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (2 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
the petitioner's son and the failure of the respondents to
preserve crucial evidence, including the CCTV footage from
Hindore Toll Plaza, which the petitioner claims is pivotal to
his defense.
2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs through the instant
writ petition:
a. By an appropriate writ, order or direction
respondents may kindly be directed to procure CCTV
footage of the Hindor Toll Plaza dated 20.12.2022 from
8:45 am to 1:00 p.m.
b. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the
present petitioner's son may kindly be discharged from
the NDPS charges leveled against him.
c. By an appropriate writ, order or direction criminal
proceedings initiated against the present petitioner
may kindly be drooped.
d. By an appropriate writ, order or direction present
petitioner's son may be released from the judicial
custody.
e. By an appropriate writ, order or direction FIR no.
323/2022 Police Station Rajiyasar, District Ganganagar
(Rajasthan) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Brief Facts
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,
who is the mother of the accused, invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (3 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
of India. The grievance of the petitioner arises out of the
criminal proceedings initiated vide FIR No. 323/2022
registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar
for offences under Sections 8, 15, 21 and 25 of the NDPS
Act. The petitioner contends that her son has been falsely
implicated and that the investigation conducted by the police
authorities suffers from serious procedural infirmities. It is
the specific case of the petitioner that the alleged
interception of the vehicles and the subsequent search and
recovery are stated to have taken place at Hindore Toll Plaza
on the Bikaner-Suratgarh National Highway on 20.12.2022
between approximately 11:10 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., a place
which is admittedly equipped with CCTV surveillance
systems.
4. According to the prosecution, the complainant-police officer
while patrolling noticed a Swift car and a Bolero Pick-up
moving at high speed, chased them on suspicion, and
ultimately stopped the vehicles at Hindore Toll Plaza where
search was conducted in the presence of alleged independent
witnesses. It is alleged that from the Swift car bearing
registration No. RJ19CK7868 four plastic bags containing
poppy husk weighing 76 Kg in total were recovered.
However, the petitioner asserts that no recovery was made
from the Bolero vehicle and that the alleged recovery from
the Swift car is fabricated. It is further alleged that the
incident began with a minor altercation between the police
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (4 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
personnel and the accused after the side mirror of the Swift
car was damaged during the chase, which subsequently led
to false implication of the petitioner's son. The petitioner
emphasizes that her son is 38 years old and has no criminal
antecedents.
5. The central grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to the
deliberate failure of the investigating agency to secure and
preserve the CCTV footage of Hindore Toll Plaza for the
relevant period. The petitioner had moved an application
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh on
04.01.2023 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of
CCTV footage for the period between 8:45 A.M. and 1:00
P.M. on 20.12.2022, which could have conclusively
demonstrated the sequence of events. The learned trial court
directed the prosecution to produce the said footage;
however, despite repeated opportunities and judicial
directions, the footage was not produced and ultimately the
Toll Plaza authorities reported that the data had been
deleted. The petitioner alleges that the prosecution
deliberately delayed the production of footage so that the
30-day retention period could lapse, thereby resulting in
destruction of the most crucial evidence. Hence, the present
writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (5 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
OBSERVATION OF THE COURT
7. The Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as
the material placed on record. The issues raised in the
present writ petition transcend the ordinary realm of factual
disputes and enter into the domain of constitutional
guarantees relating to fairness in criminal investigation and
trial.
8. At the outset, it must be observed that offences under the
NDPS Act are amongst the most stringent offences
contemplated in criminal jurisprudence. The statute
prescribes severe mandatory punishments and incorporates
stringent procedural requirements. The minimum sentence
for certain offences may extend to ten years or more,
thereby significantly affecting the liberty of an accused
person. It is therefore well settled that the prosecution in
such cases carries a heavy and rigorous burden of proof and
must strictly comply with procedural safeguards prescribed
under law.
9. Amongst the various principles governing criminal evidence,
the Rule of Best Evidence occupies a foundational position.
This principle mandates that when the best available
evidence capable of proving a particular fact is accessible to
a party, that party is obligated to produce such evidence
before the Court. Inferior or secondary evidence cannot
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (6 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
substitute the primary and most reliable evidence when the
latter is within the reach of the party relying upon it.
10. The aforesaid principle finds statutory recognition in the
scheme of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly in
Sections 61, 62 and 64 which require that the contents of a
document must ordinarily be proved by primary evidence,
that is, the document itself. The doctrine underlying these
provisions is commonly referred to as the Rule of Best
Evidence, which mandates that when the most direct and
reliable evidence of a fact is available, the same must be
produced before the Court. Secondary or inferior forms of
proof are permissible only in exceptional circumstances
contemplated under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The
object of this rule is to ensure the highest degree of
reliability in judicial fact-finding by insisting that the Court be
placed in possession of the most authentic material evidence
capable of proving the fact in issue.
11.The principle has been consistently recognised in
authoritative legal commentary as well. As explained by Sir
James Fitzjames Stephen in his treatise Digest of the Law of
Evidence, the rule is founded upon the logic that "the best
available evidence must be produced in order to prevent
fraud, mistake, or distortion of facts." Similarly, leading
Indian commentary such as Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on the Law
of Evidence explains that the rule is designed to exclude
weaker evidence when stronger and more reliable evidence
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (7 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
is available. The rationale behind the doctrine is that the
administration of justice must rely upon the most direct,
authentic and trustworthy form of proof, so that the Court
may reach its conclusions upon the clearest possible
evidentiary foundation.
12.In the modern context, this doctrine has naturally expanded
to include electronic records, which are recognised as
documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act
and are governed by the special provisions contained in
Sections 65A and 65B. Consequently, where a fact in issue is
capable of being proved through contemporaneous electronic
recording such as CCTV surveillance capturing the events in
real time, such evidence may constitute the best and most
direct evidence of the occurrence.
13.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v.
Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1346) has categorically held
that it is a cardinal principle of evidence that the best
available evidence must be placed before the Court in order
to establish a fact in issue.
14.In criminal trials this principle assumes even greater
importance because the presumption of innocence lies in
favour of the accused. The prosecution is required to
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and not merely on a
balance of probabilities. Therefore, where crucial evidence
capable of establishing the truth of the prosecution narrative
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (8 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
exists but is withheld or allowed to disappear, the Court
cannot ignore such conduct.
15.In the present case, the prosecution narrative itself indicates
that the alleged interception, apprehension of the accused,
movement of vehicles, their entry into the toll plaza, the
search proceedings and subsequent events all occurred
within the premises of Hindore Toll Plaza, a place admittedly
covered by CCTV surveillance systems. The Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways guidelines, placed on record, require
toll plazas to maintain CCTV recordings for a stipulated
period. Thus, the electronic footage of the relevant period
constituted direct and objective evidence capable of
depicting the entire sequence of events.
16.Such electronic evidence would have had the capacity to
demonstrate:
• the manner in which the vehicles arrived at the toll plaza,
• the presence and movement of police personnel,
• the alleged apprehension of the accused,
• the circumstances under which the vehicles were taken to the
administrative office, and
• the conduct of search and seizure operations.
17.Thus, the CCTV footage constituted the most reliable and
unbiased evidence regarding the events which formed the
very substratum of the prosecution case.
18.In the contemporary era of digital technology, electronic
evidence such as CCTV recordings has assumed
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (9 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
extraordinary significance in the administration of criminal
justice. Unlike oral testimony, which is dependent upon
human perception, memory and narration, electronic
recordings capture events as they actually unfold in real
time. When such recordings are obtained in accordance with
the regular protocol of operation of surveillance systems and
are shown to be free from any possibility of tampering,
morphing, distortion, corruption or fabrication, they
constitute one of the most reliable forms of evidence
available to a court of law.
19.Electronic evidence which is produced in accordance with the
statutory requirements governing admissibility and which is
free from any reasonable suspicion of manipulation can, in
appropriate circumstances, represent the best form of
evidence available for determining the truth of disputed
events. This is because such evidence does not depend upon
human recollection or interpretation but rather reflects the
events as they actually occurred before the camera.
Consequently, when the authenticity of such electronic
material is established and the chain of custody is intact, it
often possesses a degree of objectivity and reliability which
oral or documentary evidence may not always achieve.
20.In many criminal cases, the testimony of witnesses is
inevitably influenced by the limitations of human perception
and memory. Witnesses may honestly differ in their narration
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (10 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
of events due to lapse of time, stress of the moment, or
subjective interpretation of circumstances. Documents, on
the other hand, merely record what a person has chosen to
write or narrate regarding a particular event. Electronic
evidence, particularly CCTV recordings, stands on a distinct
footing because it directly captures the occurrence itself. It
therefore provides the Court with an opportunity to view the
sequence of events in their natural form, thereby enabling a
more accurate appreciation of the factual matrix.
21.For this reason, where an occurrence takes place at a
location covered by surveillance cameras and the relevant
footage is available, such recording may constitute evidence
of a higher evidentiary value than oral narration of the same
events by witnesses. A witness may describe what he claims
to have seen, whereas a CCTV recording depicts what
actually transpired before the camera. Therefore, when the
electronic record is authentic, untampered and properly
preserved, it may serve as the most direct and reliable
depiction of the occurrence.
22.The principle underlying the Rule of Best Evidence therefore
assumes even greater relevance in cases involving electronic
surveillance. If an event has been captured by a functioning
CCTV system and such recording is capable of revealing the
truth of the matter in dispute, the investigating agency is
expected to secure and preserve that recording with utmost
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (11 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
diligence. Failure to do so not only deprives the Court of the
most reliable source of information but may also give rise to
legitimate doubts regarding the fairness of the investigation.
23.In the present case, the CCTV cameras installed at Hindore
Toll Plaza had the potential to capture the movement of the
vehicles involved, the presence and actions of the police
personnel, the alleged apprehension of the accused, and the
subsequent search proceedings. Such footage, if preserved
and produced, would have enabled the Court to visually
examine the sequence of events instead of merely relying
upon the narrative presented by witnesses. In other words,
the electronic recording could have served as the most direct
and objective evidence regarding the very foundation of the
prosecution case.
24.When such potentially decisive evidence is allowed to
disappear despite specific judicial directions for its
production, the Court cannot ignore the serious implications
that arise therefrom. The disappearance of the electronic
footage does not merely constitute a procedural lapse;
rather, it deprives the Court of the best possible evidence
capable of verifying the truth of the allegations. In a criminal
prosecution where the liberty of an individual is at stake,
such failure assumes profound significance.
25.Under such circumstances, the primary responsibility to
collect and produce such evidence rested upon the
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (12 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
investigating agency. The State is not an ordinary litigant
driven by private vendetta or adversarial motives; rather, it
represents the sovereign authority whose obligation is to
ensure that justice is done. Therefore, the investigating
officer and the public prosecutor are expected to present
before the Court all relevant material, whether favourable or
unfavourable, to enable the Court to discover the truth.
26.However, the record of the present case reveals a disturbing
sequence of events. The petitioner approached the learned
trial court within a short span of approximately fourteen days
of the alleged incident and specifically sought production of
the CCTV footage by filing an application under Section 91
Cr.P.C. The learned trial court, recognizing the relevance of
such evidence, allowed the application and issued directions
to produce the footage along with the recording device.
27.Despite such judicial direction, the prosecution repeatedly
sought adjournments and failed to produce the footage.
Ultimately, the Toll Plaza authorities informed the Court that
the data of the relevant date had been deleted. The timing
and manner in which such explanation was furnished,
particularly after repeated adjournments, creates a
legitimate doubt regarding the bona fides of the concerned
authorities.
28.It is also noteworthy that when the accused himself
expressed willingness to bear the cost of engaging technical
experts and requested that the hard disk be sent for forensic
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (13 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
recovery of the data, the prosecution resisted such attempt
on the ground of inconvenience and technical difficulty. This
conduct assumes significance because ordinarily the
prosecution would welcome any effort aimed at
strengthening the evidentiary foundation of the case.
29.The situation therefore presents a rather unusual spectacle
where the accused was eager to bring the best possible
evidence before the Court, while the prosecution appeared
reluctant to facilitate its production.
30.In the domain of evidence law, such conduct inevitably
attracts the operation of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, ( section 119 BSA, 2023) particularly Illustration
(g) appended thereto. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence
Act reads as under:-
Section 114 of the Evidence Act:
The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely
to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation
to the facts of the particular case.
llustrations
The Court may presume --
(a) .........
(b) ........
(c) .......
(d) .......
(e) .......
(f) .......
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (14 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if
produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
31.Section 114 empowers the Court to draw presumptions
based on the natural course of human conduct and common
experience. Illustration (g) specifically provides that the
Court may presume that evidence which could be produced
and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to
the person who withholds it.
32.The principle underlying this provision is based on ordinary
human behaviour. When a party deliberately withholds the
best available evidence within its control, the Court is
justified in drawing an inference that the evidence would not
have supported that party's case. Such presumption is
particularly compelling when the evidence is not merely
incidental but goes to the root of the controversy.
33.Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, the
following circumstances emerge:
First, the prosecution was aware from the very inception that
the alleged incident occurred at a toll plaza equipped with
surveillance cameras.
Second, the petitioner specifically demanded production of
the footage within the period during which such data was
ordinarily preserved.
Third, the learned trial court passed explicit directions to
produce the footage.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (15 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
Fourth, despite such directions, the authorities delayed the
matter and ultimately reported that the footage had been
deleted.
Fifth, even the alternative request made by the accused to
recover the data through technical experts was not
meaningfully facilitated.
34.These circumstances cumulatively provide sufficient basis for
invoking the presumption contemplated under Section
114(g) of the Evidence Act. The failure to preserve and
produce such crucial electronic evidence strikes at the very
root of fair investigation, which forms an integral part of the
guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The criminal justice system cannot
permit investigative agencies to suppress or destroy
evidence which could potentially exonerate an accused
person.
35.It must be emphasized that the legitimacy of criminal
prosecution rests not merely upon the authority of the State
but upon the fairness and transparency of the investigative
process. When the investigative machinery allows the most
material evidence to disappear, the Court cannot remain
oblivious to the consequences of such lapse.
36.When prosecution fails to produce the best evidence
available in its possession, the benefit of doubt must
necessarily accrue to the accused. The greater the severity
of punishment prescribed by the statute, the greater is the
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (16 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
degree of caution required in evaluating the prosecution
case.
37.In the present matter, the alleged recovery pertains to
offences under the NDPS Act which carry severe statutory
punishments. Therefore, the standard of proof required from
the prosecution is correspondingly stringent. The absence of
the most reliable evidence, coupled with circumstances
suggesting deliberate non-production, seriously undermines
the credibility of the prosecution narrative.
38.The Court is therefore compelled to observe that the conduct
of the investigating agency in failing to secure and produce
the CCTV footage has materially prejudiced the defence of
the accused and has resulted in a situation where the truth
of the prosecution story cannot be satisfactorily verified.
ORDER
39.In light of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the
principles governing criminal jurisprudence, the Court is of
SPONSORED
the considered opinion that the non-production and apparent
destruction of the CCTV footage of Hindore Toll Plaza
constitutes suppression of the best available evidence and
attracts the presumption contemplated under Section 114(g)
of the Evidence Act,1872 (Section 119 BSA,2023) .
40.Such suppression assumes grave significance in a
prosecution under the NDPS Act where the entire case rests
upon the alleged interception and recovery at a location
which was admittedly under electronic surveillance.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (17 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
41.Accordingly, while refraining from entering into a detailed
examination of disputed facts which may fall within the
domain of the trial court, this Court deems it appropriate to
hold that the failure of the respondents to preserve and
produce the most material electronic evidence has seriously
compromised the fairness of the investigation and casts a
substantial shadow upon the prosecution case.
42.It is, however, necessary to clarify that this Court is not
adjudicating upon the merits of the criminal case nor
expressing any final opinion regarding the guilt or innocence
of the accused. The criminal trial is presently pending before
the learned trial court, which alone is the competent forum
to appreciate the evidence led by the parties and to
determine whether the prosecution has been able to
establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt in
accordance with law.
43.The observations recorded herein are confined to the limited
issue relating to the non-production and apparent
disappearance of the CCTV footage which, as discussed
above, constituted the most direct and reliable evidence
regarding the occurrence in question. The ultimate
evaluation of the entire evidence on record remains within
the exclusive domain of the learned trial court.
44. Nevertheless, in view of the circumstances noticed
hereinabove, it is expected that the learned trial court, while
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (18 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
appreciating the evidence and deciding the case on its
merits, shall duly consider the legal consequences flowing
from the non-production of such crucial electronic evidence.
45.It is clarified that the learned trial court shall remain fully
competent and uninfluenced to appreciate all the evidence
that may be led by the parties during the course of trial.
However, in view of the admitted fact that the most material
electronic evidence namely, the CCTV footage of Hindore Toll
Plaza was not preserved or produced despite timely demand
and explicit judicial directions, the trial court shall
mandatorily take note of this lapse and apply the principle
embodied in Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023).
46.Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with
the observations recorded hereinabove. While deciding the
case on its merits, the learned trial court shall draw the
necessary adverse inference that the electronic evidence
which was admittedly within the control of the prosecution
and could have been produced, but was withheld or allowed
to be deleted, would, if produced have been unfavourable to
the prosecution. This adverse presumption shall form an
integral part of the trial court’s evaluation of the prosecution
case in the light of the rule of best evidence and the
cumulative circumstances noted hereinabove.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (19 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]
47.All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
16-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
