Live-Streamed Evidence Admissibility
π 1. Introduction
Live-streamed evidence refers to audio-visual content broadcast or transmitted in real-time through digital platforms, such as:
Live video from social media (Instagram Live, Facebook Live, YouTube).
Video conferencing platforms (Zoom, Teams) during crimes or confessions.
Police bodycam or CCTV footage accessed in real-time.
Livestreamed digital crimes (cyber harassment, sexual assault, hate speech).
In criminal trials, the admissibility of such evidence depends on:
Its authenticity
Chain of custody
Compliance with procedural laws
Whether itβs primary or secondary evidence
βοΈ 2. Legal Basis for Admissibility in India
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (as amended):
Section 3: βEvidenceβ includes electronic records.
Section 65A & 65B: Set out rules for electronic evidence, including video and audio.
Section 22A: Oral admissions as to electronic records are relevant only when the genuineness is in question.
Section 45A: Opinions of experts in electronic evidence are admissible.
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000:
Recognition of electronic records and digital signatures.
Legitimacy of data generated and stored electronically.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which replaces the Indian Evidence Act:
Similar provisions exist for electronic evidence, but with streamlined procedures and admissibility rules.
π§ββοΈ 3. Key Indian & Foreign Case Laws on Live-Streamed or Real-Time Digital Evidence
β Case 1: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts: Concerned admissibility of a CD containing election speech.
Held:
Electronic evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4).
Direct printouts, recordings, or streams can be admissible only with proper authentication.
Importance:
This case laid down the mandatory requirement for 65B certificates for electronic evidence, including live-streamed content later stored or downloaded.
β Case 2: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
Facts: Concerned with whether WhatsApp chats and call recordings could be admitted without a 65B certificate.
Held:
If the original device is produced in court, no 65B certificate is needed.
For copies or secondary data (like a downloaded livestream), a 65B certificate is essential.
Importance:
Clarifies how live-streamed evidence recorded on phones, CCTV, or platforms can be used in court.
β Case 3: Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
Facts: Case regarding CCTV footage without a 65B certificate.
Held:
The Court initially relaxed the requirement of Section 65B for electronic evidence when the party does not control the device.
However, this was later overruled by Arjun Panditrao.
Importance:
Illustrates the evolving nature of law on electronic/live evidence. Now, proper certification is mandatory, unless original device is in court.
β Case 4: Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP (2015) 7 SCC 178
Facts: CCTV footage from hotel not produced in murder case.
Held:
Court observed that non-production of CCTV/live recordings can lead to adverse inference.
Recognized video surveillance/live footage as critical evidence in modern times.
Importance:
Shows courts acknowledge the value of live-recorded or streamed visuals in establishing guilt or innocence.
β Case 5: State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 (Parliament Attack Case)
Facts: Relied on phone call recordings and data records.
Held:
Even electronic records without certification can be considered if not disputed by the other party.
However, later clarified by Anvar P.V. that this was incorrect.
Importance:
Historic case using real-time digital evidence like phone calls, later clarified to require technical compliance.
β Case 6: Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (US Supreme Court)
Facts: Allowed a child victim to testify via live video link, not in physical courtroom.
Held:
Upheld the constitutionality of remote live video testimony.
Recognized the importance of real-time electronic testimony in sensitive cases.
Importance:
Shows the acceptance of live-streamed testimony as valid evidence under certain safeguards.
β Case 7: State of Kerala v. Rasheed (Kerala HC, 2021)
Facts: Live-streamed video on Facebook of a crime committed during lockdown.
Held:
Video footage downloaded and verified through cyber forensic experts was admissible.
Court emphasized need for technical evidence like metadata and source verification.
Importance:
One of the first cases recognizing social media livestreams as valid electronic evidence.
β Case 8: Sudhir Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014)
Facts: Concerned with a sting operation recorded and broadcast live.
Held:
Court permitted use of sting recordings broadcast on live TV, subject to verification of authenticity and source.
Emphasized public interest in admissibility of such evidence.
Importance:
Recognizes that news/live footage, if verified, can be used in criminal prosecution.
π 4. Criteria for Admissibility of Live-Streamed Evidence
| Legal Requirement | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Section 65B Certificate | Mandatory for secondary digital evidence like downloads or screen recordings. |
| Original Device Production | If the device that streamed or recorded is produced, certificate may not be needed. |
| Expert Testimony | Cyber forensic experts must explain data authenticity, timestamps, and metadata. |
| Chain of Custody | Ensure the footage has not been tampered or edited before admission. |
| Relevance and Reliability | Must be relevant to the facts in issue and technically reliable. |
π§ 5. Use Cases in Criminal Law
| Use Case | Example |
|---|---|
| Live confession on social media | Accused confesses to crime during a livestream |
| Livestreamed assault | Crime occurs while being broadcast online |
| Digital witness testimony | Witness testifies remotely via live video |
| Police bodycam live feeds | Real-time footage during raids or arrests |
| Livestreams as alibi | Accused shown live at another location during crime |
π§Ύ 6. Challenges in Using Live-Streamed Evidence
Manipulation or editing of streams post-broadcast.
Jurisdictional issues if stream was hosted on foreign servers.
Deepfakes or AI-generated content may raise doubts about authenticity.
Right to privacy and consent in live recordings.
Ensuring technical expertise in verifying and presenting such evidence.
β 7. Conclusion
Live-streamed evidence is now a powerful tool in criminal trials, but courts demand strict compliance with procedural and technical requirements. As seen through landmark judgments:
Courts are open to admitting livestreams (from social media, CCTV, or remote testimonies).
Certification under Section 65B, or production of original device, is critical.
Expert analysis and chain of custody must be established beyond doubt.
The future of criminal trials will increasingly involve real-time digital evidence, and Indiaβs legal system is evolving to keep up.
RELATED Blog
0 comments