Case Law On Cctv Footage Authenticity
1. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
Facts:
In this case, a murder investigation relied partially on CCTV footage capturing the movement of the accused near the crime scene. The prosecution sought to use the footage as evidence of presence at the scene.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized that for CCTV footage to be admissible, its authenticity and chain of custody must be established. This means it must be proven that the recording device was functioning properly, and the footage has not been tampered with.
Key Principle:
CCTV recordings are admissible under Indian Evidence Act, Section 65B, but only when proper certification and preservation are done.
The court held that mere footage without authentication cannot convict an accused.
2. Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer & Ors (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts:
This landmark case directly addressed the admissibility of electronic evidence, including CCTV footage. The appellant challenged the use of electronic evidence without proper certification under Section 65B.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that electronic records, including CCTV footage, are admissible only if accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court emphasized that this certificate must state that the device was operating properly and that the record has not been tampered with.
Key Principle:
Without a proper Section 65B certificate, CCTV footage is inadmissible, even if its authenticity seems obvious.
This judgment strengthened the procedural requirement for authenticating CCTV evidence.
3. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (2015)
Facts:
In a robbery case, the accused challenged the use of CCTV footage from a nearby shop to establish their presence at the crime scene.
Judgment:
The court analyzed the technical aspects of CCTV cameras, such as timing, continuity of recording, and integrity of storage.
Experts were brought to testify that the footage was original, unedited, and correctly timestamped.
The court held that when accompanied by expert verification and proper chain of custody, CCTV footage can form credible corroborative evidence.
Key Principle:
CCTV footage can corroborate eyewitness testimony, but must be carefully validated for authenticity.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2016)
Facts:
In this case, the prosecution relied on CCTV footage to establish the accused’s involvement in a chain snatching case. The defense challenged the authenticity, citing potential tampering.
Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court ruled that CCTV evidence is admissible only if it is continuous, properly preserved, and accompanied by metadata proving no tampering.
The court also observed that blurred or incomplete footage cannot serve as sole evidence for conviction.
Key Principle:
CCTV evidence is supportive but not conclusive unless corroborated with other evidence.
Courts scrutinize technical verification, such as timestamps and system logs, to ensure authenticity.
5. Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab (2018)
Facts:
A murder investigation included CCTV footage showing the accused entering the vicinity of the crime. The defense argued that the footage was insufficiently verified.
Judgment:
Punjab & Haryana High Court reiterated that for CCTV footage to be admissible, it must be:
Recorded from a functioning camera.
Preserved without alteration.
Certified under Section 65B.
The court also noted that chain of custody from recording to submission in court is critical.
Key Principle:
CCTV footage cannot stand alone; it must be supported by proper authentication and corroborative evidence.
Summary of Judicial Principles on CCTV Footage
Authentication is critical – courts require evidence that the footage is original, unaltered, and from a functional device.
Section 65B compliance – a certificate is mandatory for admissibility of electronic records.
Chain of custody – proper storage and handling must be shown to prevent tampering.
Corroboration – courts prefer CCTV evidence to support other evidence rather than being the sole basis for conviction.
Expert testimony – often needed to establish technical validity of the recording.
RELATED Blog
0 comments