Cctv Footage Authenticity
π Introduction
CCTV footage has become an essential form of electronic evidence in criminal and civil cases. However, for such evidence to be admissible and reliable in court, its authenticity must be established through legal procedures.
βοΈ Legal Framework
π 1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (as amended by IT Act, 2000)
Section 65B β Deals with the admissibility of electronic records.
Section 62 & 63 β Define primary and secondary evidence.
Section 45A β Expert opinion on electronic records.
Section 22A β Oral admission not relevant unless relating to electronic record.
π Key Requirements for CCTV Footage Admissibility
Relevance β The footage must relate to the facts in issue.
Proper Custody β The footage must be obtained and stored in a secure manner.
Certification under Section 65B(4) β A certificate must accompany the footage if itβs submitted as secondary electronic evidence (copy).
No tampering β Any suspicion of tampering can make the footage inadmissible.
Chain of Custody β Must show where and how the footage was stored/handled.
π§ββοΈ Landmark Case Laws β CCTV Footage Authenticity
1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts:
Anvar alleged defamatory speech was made against him and submitted an audio CD and electronic documents as evidence.
Issues:
Whether the electronic evidence (audio CD) is admissible without a certificate under Section 65B(4).
Held:
Supreme Court held that electronic evidence without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) is not admissible unless original electronic media is produced.
Significance:
Established that Section 65B certificate is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence, including CCTV.
2. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
Facts:
In a murder case, CCTV footage was crucial but the certificate under Section 65B could not be obtained.
Issues:
Whether court can allow electronic evidence without Section 65B certificate.
Held:
Supreme Court clarified that certificate is not mandatory if the original device is produced or if the person producing it is the owner.
Significance:
Relaxed Anvar's strict rule, allowing admission if authenticity can be otherwise established.
3. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
Facts:
Concerns submission of electronic records (emails, video footage) in election petition.
Issues:
Revisiting the conflict between Anvar and Shafhi Mohammad.
Held:
Larger bench overruled Shafhi Mohammad and reaffirmed Anvar P.V.: Section 65B certificate is mandatory, unless original device is produced.
Significance:
Reinforced that 65B certificate is a condition precedent unless original device is presented.
4. Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC 570
Facts:
Conviction based partly on mobile data and CCTV without proper certification.
Issues:
Whether evidence admitted without objection can still be disregarded for lack of Section 65B certificate.
Held:
Supreme Court held that objection to the admissibility of evidence must be taken at the earliest.
Otherwise, even uncertified electronic evidence may be relied upon.
Significance:
Introduced procedural caution β if no objection is raised at trial, later challenges may not succeed.
5. Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178
Facts:
Italian nationals convicted for murder; they demanded CCTV footage from hotel which the prosecution did not produce.
Issues:
Whether non-production of CCTV footage affects the credibility of the prosecutionβs case.
Held:
Non-production of CCTV footage, which could support the defence, created adverse inference against prosecution.
Significance:
Emphasized importance of CCTV evidence and that failure to produce may lead to adverse inference.
6. Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) β Nirbhaya Case (2017) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
CCTV footage used to track movement of accused after the gang rape and murder.
Issues:
Admissibility and reliability of CCTV evidence under Section 65B.
Held:
Court admitted CCTV evidence with proper chain of custody and 65B certification.
Significance:
Major criminal conviction based largely on authenticated CCTV footage.
7. State v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afzal Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600
Facts:
Parliament attack case; digital evidence like phone call records and computer logs were relied on.
Held:
Supreme Court admitted electronic evidence without 65B certificate.
However:
This was overruled in Anvar P.V. case, hence 65B is now mandatory unless original is produced.
π Key Takeaways from the Case Law
| Legal Point | Case Reference |
|---|---|
| 65B certificate mandatory | Anvar P.V., Arjun Panditrao Khotkar |
| Exception if original device is produced | Shafhi Mohammad (overruled but cited) |
| Failure to raise objection early = waiver | Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana |
| CCTV non-production = adverse inference | Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. |
| Chain of custody is vital | Mukesh v. State (Nirbhaya case) |
π‘οΈ Practical Steps to Authenticate CCTV Footage
Secure original footage and device (DVR/NVR).
Obtain 65B certificate from authorized person (IT officer, system admin).
Ensure time/date stamp is accurate and tamper-free.
Maintain chain of custody records.
Expert testimony can be called to verify footage integrity.
π Sample Contents of a 65B Certificate
As per Section 65B(4), the certificate must mention:
The device used to produce the output.
Details of how the data was stored and transferred.
That the device was functioning properly.
Signature of responsible officer (with designation and date).
RELATED Blog
0 comments