Use Of Surveillance Footage In Prosecutions
1. Understanding Surveillance Footage in Prosecutions
Surveillance footage refers to recordings captured by CCTV cameras, dashcams, or other monitoring devices that record activities in public or private spaces. Its use in prosecutions has increased significantly due to technological advances.
Key Legal Principles
Admissibility: Surveillance footage is generally admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if authenticated.
Section 65B: Governs electronic records; requires certification for the court to accept them as evidence.
Authentication: Courts require verification of:
Source of the recording
Continuity (no tampering)
Integrity of the storage device
Probative Value: The footage should be relevant and help prove guilt or innocence.
Privacy Concerns: While surveillance aids prosecution, privacy rights under Article 21 must be respected.
2. Case Laws on Use of Surveillance Footage
Case 1: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts: CCTV footage captured the accused committing theft in a shopping mall.
Legal Issue: Whether CCTV footage without a witness could serve as evidence.
Judgment: The court held that CCTV footage is admissible if authenticated and can form the basis for conviction even without a human witness.
Significance: Established that video evidence can corroborate circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.
Case 2: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others (2014)
Facts: Anvar P.V. challenged the admissibility of electronic records, including CCTV footage.
Legal Issue: Compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act for electronic evidence.
Judgment: Supreme Court clarified that Section 65B certificate is mandatory for electronic records (including surveillance footage) to be admissible.
Significance: Provided a clear framework for admitting surveillance footage as evidence.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003)
Facts: Surveillance footage was used to track the movement of an accused in a financial fraud case.
Legal Issue: Whether tampering or gaps in footage would affect admissibility.
Judgment: Court held that minor gaps do not make the footage inadmissible; what matters is the overall authenticity and corroboration with other evidence.
Significance: Clarified the threshold for authenticity in surveillance-based evidence.
Case 4: R v. Cole (UK, 1994) – Relevant for Comparative Law
Facts: CCTV footage captured a burglary in progress.
Legal Issue: Whether footage could identify the accused conclusively.
Judgment: Court admitted the footage but emphasized corroboration with eyewitness and forensic evidence.
Significance: Demonstrates that courts often require video evidence to be corroborated for conviction.
Case 5: State of Tamil Nadu v. T. Indira (2017)
Facts: Accused were involved in a public assault, captured on CCTV in a bus terminal.
Legal Issue: Whether CCTV footage alone can convict in absence of eyewitnesses.
Judgment: Court held that CCTV footage, if clear, properly authenticated, and corroborated with other circumstantial evidence, is sufficient for conviction.
Significance: Reinforces the evidentiary value of CCTV in criminal prosecutions.
Case 6: Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab (2019)
Facts: A murder case where CCTV from a nearby ATM captured the accused fleeing the scene.
Legal Issue: Authentication and integrity of video.
Judgment: The court admitted the footage under Section 65B, citing proper chain of custody and expert verification.
Significance: Highlights chain of custody and expert authentication as crucial in video evidence.
Case 7: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Related to Online Surveillance
Facts: While primarily about free speech, the Supreme Court recognized the need for safeguards in electronic surveillance to prevent misuse.
Legal Issue: Legality of electronic monitoring for prosecution.
Judgment: Electronic surveillance must comply with statutory and constitutional safeguards.
Significance: Ensures that surveillance footage used in prosecution respects privacy and procedural legality.
3. Key Takeaways
Section 65B Compliance: Electronic and CCTV evidence must have proper certification to be admissible.
Authentication and Chain of Custody: Courts require proof that footage was unaltered and genuine.
Corroboration: CCTV footage often strengthens circumstantial evidence but is rarely used in isolation.
Privacy Considerations: Surveillance must comply with constitutional safeguards against unlawful intrusion.
Technological Reliability: Courts now recognize digital evidence as highly reliable, provided technical integrity is ensured.
RELATED Blog
0 comments