CCTV Footage and Electronic Evidence in Indian Courts
The increasing reliance on electronic evidence, particularly CCTV footage, in criminal trials has historically presented a challenge for Indian courts. Under the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act (IEA), 1872, such records were treated as secondary evidence, and their admissibility was governed by the stringent technical requirements of Section 65B. This often complicated legal proceedings, as a specific certificate was mandated to prove the integrity of the electronic record.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, marks a significant and methodical shift in this approach. It recognizes electronic records as primary evidence under Section 57, thereby simplifying their submission in judicial proceedings. This reclassification fundamentally changes how digital evidence is viewed and used in a courtroom.
While the new law streamlines the process, the admissibility of CCTV footage still undergoes crucial checks to ensure its reliability. Section 63 of the BSA, which replaces the old Section 65B, outlines the conditions for this, including the need for a certificate in certain cases. This updated framework facilitates the use of digital evidence for a fairer and more efficient trial, building upon the established body of law while addressing its previous shortcomings.
Recent Judicial Trends
Recent judicial trends reflect the evolving legal landscape concerning digital evidence. While the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailas Kushanrao Gorantyal reaffirmed the strict requirement for a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it also acknowledged the practical difficulties.
Prior to this, the Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) had held that courts should not insist on an impossible certification requirement from parties who do not have control over the device that generated the electronic evidence.
Furthermore, courts are increasingly recognizing new technologies for validating electronic records. For example, the Madras High Court in K. Ramajayam v. Inspector of Police (2022) acknowledged the growing role of hash values in proving the authenticity of digital evidence. These trends highlight the judiciary’s efforts to balance evidentiary integrity with the practical realities of a digital-first world—a balance now being solidified by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
National and International Scenario
Courts in India, the USA, and the UK are all grappling with the legal complexities of digital evidence, reflecting the global challenges posed by technology.
India
In India, the latest legal developments centre on the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which has replaced the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the provisions of Section 65B of the IEA (now Section 63 of the BSA) are mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence, particularly when secondary copies are presented. This includes the requirement for a certificate to prove the integrity and chain of custody of the digital record. The judiciary is also actively seeking guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices by investigative agencies to protect citizens’ privacy.
USA
In the USA, the Supreme Court’s approach is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Recent trends, particularly concerning cryptocurrency, indicate a focus on the “third-party doctrine,” where information shared with a third party (like a crypto exchange) may not be protected. The judiciary is also confronting the challenge of balancing privacy with law enforcement’s access to an individual’s digital life, as seen in cases involving “John Doe” summonses for cryptocurrency records.
UK
In the UK, the judiciary is being forced to reconsider its approach to digital evidence in light of the Post Office Horizon scandal. The long-standing presumption that computer systems are reliable has been exposed as flawed. This has prompted a government review to prevent future miscarriages of justice, with a focus on requiring greater scrutiny and authentication of computer-generated evidence. Courts are now more likely to demand that the party presenting the evidence prove its reliability, moving away from the assumption that a computer’s output is automatically correct.
Proving the Video is Real
First, it’s crucial to show that the video is authentic and hasn’t been faked or altered:
- Who made the recording? Someone who managed or operated the camera system, like its caretaker, needs to explain how the system works and confirm it was recording properly.
- How was it kept safe? The court will check if the video was stored securely and retrieved from a trusted source. This proves no one could easily tamper with it.
- Has it been changed? Judges look for any signs of editing, strange visual errors, or missing parts, which would make them doubt its truthfulness.
The admissibility and authenticity of CCTV footage in court are contingent upon fulfilling specific legal requirements. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, electronic records, including video surveillance, are now recognized as primary evidence under Section 57, provided they are produced from proper custody. This marks a fundamental shift from the previous Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which classified such evidence as secondary and required a mandatory Section 65B certificate for admissibility.
To establish the authenticity and reliability of the video, a series of checks are performed. First, the chain of custody must be proven. This involves a competent witness, such as the system’s caretaker, who can testify to its proper functioning and confirm that the recording was made correctly. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that the video was stored securely and retrieved from a legitimate source, ensuring it was not tampered with. Finally, the footage itself is examined for any signs of manipulation, such as editing or visual inconsistencies, which could cast doubt on its truthfulness. By classifying electronic records as primary evidence, the BSA streamlines this process while maintaining the necessary legal scrutiny to ensure a fair and just trial.
Tracing the Video’s Journey (Chain of Custody)
Courts demand a clear history of how the video was handled from the moment it was recorded.
Continuous Chain of Custody
Continuous Chain of Custody: An exhaustive and unbroken log of the video’s handling is crucial, starting from its initial recording until it’s presented in court.
Original Recording Details
Original Recording Details: The exact time and geographical location of the video’s capture must be precisely documented. They need to know the exact time and place it was first captured.
Access and Viewing Log
Access and Viewing Log: A comprehensive register must detail every person who has viewed or accessed the video since its creation. The court requires a comprehensive log of every individual who has accessed or viewed the video since its creation.
Methodology of Transfer
Methodology of Transfer: The specific methods used to transfer the video to police or legal professionals must be clearly articulated. The court requires a clear explanation of how the video was transferred to the police or legal professionals.
Proof of Integrity
Proof of Integrity: There must be absolute, demonstrable proof that the video evidence is pristine and has not been altered or modified in any way. The court would look for confirmation that the footage stayed untouched throughout this entire process. If there’s any gap or uncertainty in this record, the court might not allow the video to be used at all.
Technical Deep Dive
Sometimes, experts are called to perform a technical check of the video. They:
- Look at hidden details like timestamps, camera ID numbers, and location data.
- Check that the video quality and playback speed are consistent.
- Search for any hidden signs that the video was changed or edited.
- Confirm if the video matches other evidence, like phone records or GPS data.
Legal Precedent
In an important case, Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court of India said that CCTV video was crucial for understanding what happened. However, they stressed that it could only be used if all the proper steps in Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023) were followed.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which dealt with the admissibility of electronic records, has been replaced by Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
Key Changes in the BSA
- Expanded Scope: The BSA broadens the definition of “document” to include electronic and digital records, making them a part of documentary evidence. This simplifies the process, as the need for a separate legal framework for electronic evidence is eliminated.
- Primary Evidence: The new law classifies electronic records from proper custody as primary evidence unless their authenticity is disputed. It also states that each file in a multiple-file storage system is considered primary evidence.
- Authentication Certificate: While the certificate requirement from Section 65B is largely retained, the BSA introduces a new requirement for a certificate to be signed not only by the person in charge of the device but also by a certified expert. It also mandates the inclusion of a hash value in the certificate for data integrity.
- Broader Definition: Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 now covers not only computers but also any “communication device,” like smartphones and laptops, and information stored in “semiconductor memory,” which reflects the evolving nature of digital technology.
Understanding What the Video Shows
When they look at the video, judges and lawyers try to understand:
- What the video actually shows.
- How clear the video is and where the camera was located.
- If it agrees with or goes against what other witnesses have said.
Often, a video by itself isn’t enough to prove a point and needs to be supported by other evidence.
Showing the Video in Court
- The video is played in the courtroom using the necessary playback equipment.
- Lawyers can pause, zoom in, or replay specific parts to emphasize important moments.
- Sometimes, lawyers also submit written notes or still pictures taken from the video as additional exhibits.
The Judge’s Final Decision
In any trial, a judge’s final decision on the weight and relevance of CCTV footage is a critical step, even after it has met all legal requirements for admission. The court will primarily evaluate three key aspects.
Key Aspects the Court Considers
- Admissibility:The court assesses admissibility to ensure the footage meets all legal standards and can be formally presented as evidence.
- Relevance:The judge considers the relevance of the footage to the specific facts of the case, determining how important the footage is in proving or disproving a key point.
- Probative Value vs. Prejudicial Effect:The judge weighs the probative value of the evidence against its potential prejudicial effect, ensuring that its power to prove a fact is not outweighed by its potential to unfairly influence or mislead the court.
When accepted, CCTV footage can serve as a powerful and sometimes decisive piece of evidence, capable of significantly impacting the outcome of a case.
Challenges in Using CCTV Footage as Court Evidence
The judicial use of CCTV footage as evidence presents several challenges, primarily due to its digital nature. One of the foremost concerns is authenticity and integrity. Courts must be assured that the footage has not been manipulated, edited, or tampered with. This necessitates strict compliance with the chain of custody, ensuring a continuous, documented record of who accessed or handled the footage at each stage. Any break or irregularity in this chain can render the evidence inadmissible.
Another major hurdle is the technical quality of the footage. Issues such as poor resolution, inadequate lighting, restricted camera angles, and absence of audio can severely limit the footage’s probative value. The common assumption that “video doesn’t lie” can be misleading; a biased camera angle or selectively recorded segment may distort the actual context, leading to erroneous interpretations.
Finally, the legal framework governing electronic evidence imposes procedural safeguards. For instance, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 mandates that electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate affirming that the data was generated, stored, and retrieved in the ordinary course of business, without alteration. Failure to comply with these statutory requirements often results in the evidence being challenged or excluded altogether.
Conclusion
The introduction of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, marks a pivotal moment for the Indian legal system’s approach to digital evidence. By reclassifying electronic records, including CCTV footage, as primary evidence under Section 57, the BSA fundamentally streamlines a once-cumbersome process governed by the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
While the new law retains the need for rigorous scrutiny and a certificate in some instances under Section 63, it ultimately facilitates a more efficient and just trial process. The judiciary’s evolving stance, as seen in recent rulings, demonstrates a clear move toward balancing evidentiary integrity with the realities of a technologically advanced society. Ultimately, this legal reform empowers courts to more effectively use powerful digital evidence to uncover the truth and ensure justice is served.
