Suresh v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 54366)
Kerala High Court Mandates Audio-Visual Crime-Scene Documentation & Forensic Compliance under the BNSS, 2023

1. Introduction

On 23 July 2025, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (Raja Vijayaraghavan V. & K.V. Jayakumar JJ.) delivered a landmark judgment in Suresh v. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2019. The Court set aside the conviction of the appellant Suresh—previously sentenced to life imprisonment for murder—on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Far more significant, however, is the Bench’s extensive discourse on the quality of criminal investigations in the State and its first authoritative exposition of the mandatory audio-visual and forensic protocols introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The verdict thus straddles two dimensions:

1. It re-appreciates evidence in a routine criminal appeal and overturns the conviction.
2. It lays down systemic directions compelling the police to adopt technology-driven, evidence-centred investigative practices—especially mandatory videography of searches, seizures and witness statements, and timely involvement of forensic experts.

These directions, coupled with the Court’s reprimand of investigative lapses, effectively create a binding precedent for Kerala on the implementation of BNSS requirements.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Acquittal: The Bench reversed the trial court’s finding that Suresh intentionally pushed the deceased into a drain leading to fatal spinal injuries. Critical inconsistencies (e.g., the wound certificate noting “fall from height” and the suppression of the victim’s own statement) raised reasonable doubt.
• Investigation Criticised: The Court found the scene mahazar and site plan “virtually useless”, no scientific evidence had been collected, and the investigating officer failed to produce the victim’s statement recorded in hospital.
• Systemic Directions: Invoking new statutes—BNSS 2023, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—the Court required:
  • Mandatory audio-visual recording of searches, seizures, witness interrogations, and crime-scene processing.
  • Compulsory association of forensic experts in offences punishable with ≥7 years (BNSS §176(3)).
  • Adoption of the Union Government’s e-Sakshya digital-evidence platform or an equivalent system.
  • Training, supervision and accountability mechanisms for investigating officers.
• Administrative Follow-up: The Registry was directed to forward the judgment to the State Police Chief and Home Department for immediate compliance.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135 – emphasised fidelity, accuracy and scientific temper in investigations. The Court quoted paragraphs 96-97 to underline modern expectations from investigators.
2. Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178 – affirmed that scientific and electronic evidence must supplement traditional methods; failure to produce CCTV video constituted adverse inference.
3. Rollymol v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC 7324 – a recent Division Bench pronouncement (one of the present judges concurring) lamenting antiquated policing methods and urging a central knowledge repository for investigators.

These authorities collectively underscore the judiciary’s impatience with antiquated or casual investigative methods and provide jurisprudential scaffolding for the present directives.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Bench’s reasoning proceeds on two tracks:

1. Factual Re-appreciation:
   • The earliest medical record (wound certificate) attributes injuries to an accidental fall, not an assault.
   • The deceased remained conscious for days; yet his statement—recorded by police—was withheld. Doctrine of adverse inference (Evidence Act §114(g), now BSA equivalents) applied.
   • PW5’s courtroom narration diverged materially from her First Information Statement; omissions about the knife, scuffle and her injury undermined credibility.
   • Delay of ~33 hrs in lodging FIR, lack of corroborative witnesses in a residential area, and poorly drafted site plan cumulatively generated reasonable doubt.
2. Systemic Critique & Norm-Setting:
   • The investigation was irresponsible and careless; crucial scientific protocols were ignored.
   • New criminal codes (BNSS, BNS, BSA) usher in mandatory techno-forensic procedures (videography, forensic visits, digital chain-of-custody) which must replace colonial-era practices.
   • Court converts statutory duties (BNSS §§105, 176, 180, 185) into judicially enforceable standards by directing compliance and monitoring.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Immediate: Acquittal of Suresh and release from custody.

Prospective & Systemic:

• Obligatory BNSS Compliance: Kerala Police must integrate audio-visual recording and forensic protocols into daily practice, failing which investigations risk being judicially discredited.
• Strengthened Defence Strategy: Defence counsel can rely on this precedent to challenge cases where BNSS mandates are ignored.
• Administrative Overhaul: Creates impetus for procurement of body-worn cameras, mobile-based videography kits, and forensic-lab capacity building.
• Judicial Monitoring: Trial courts are likely to demand digital evidence logs and may draw adverse inferences when electronic documentation is absent.
• National Ripple Effect: Although a High Court ruling, it may be cited in sister states as persuasive authority on the enforceability of BNSS provisions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023

The new national code of criminal procedure replacing CrPC 1973. It modernises police powers, investigation rules, arrest, bail and trial processes. Sections 105, 176, 180, 185, 183 et al. embed technology (mandatory video, forensics).

Audio-Visual Electronic Means

Any device (body camera, mobile phone, CCTV) capturing synchronized sound and video that can be stored digitally with metadata. Required for searches, seizures, witness statements.

Forensic Expert Visit (BNSS §176(3))

In offences punishable with ≥ 7 years (e.g., murder, rape) the Station House Officer must secure a forensic scientist’s presence at the scene to collect scientific evidence.

e-Sakshya Platform

A Union Government portal/mobile app that allows investigators to record, hash, timestamp and upload digital evidence directly to court repositories, ensuring chain-of-custody integrity.

Adverse Inference for Withholding Evidence

Under the Evidence Act/BSA, if a party suppresses material evidence within its power, the court may presume the evidence would have gone against that party.

5. Conclusion

Suresh v. State of Kerala is more than an acquittal; it is a judicial manifesto for 21^st-century policing. By dovetailing statutory mandates of the BNSS with constitutional due-process requirements, the Kerala High Court has:

• Reaffirmed that convictions must rest on unimpeachable and scientifically collected evidence.
• Converted legislative aspirations (audio-visual recording, compulsory forensics) into enforceable investigative duties.
• Sent a clear warning that slipshod investigations will not withstand judicial scrutiny and may even free the guilty.

The ruling thus stands at the crossroads of criminal jurisprudence and police reform, nudging law-enforcement agencies towards technological sophistication and procedural integrity—essentials for securing both convictions and public confidence in the rule of law.