EVIDENCE LAW

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

EVIDENCE LAW

PROJECT ON
ADMISSIBILITY OF CCTV FOOTAGE.

SUBMITTED TO
Ms. RASHMI REKHA BAUG

SUBMITTED BY
DIBYAKIRAN BISWAL
2018(R)/BBALLB/018

1|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA...........................................................................................1

TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................2
TABLE OF CASES...................................................................................................................................3
TABLE OF STATUES..............................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY................................................................................................................5
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.......................................................................................................................5
CCTV FOOTAGE AS EVIDENCE.........................................................................................................6
CCTV FOOTAGE TO BE DEALT WITH PRIMARY OR SECONDARY EVIDENCE?.............7
ADVANCMENT OF LEGAL METHODOLOGY TOWARDS CCTV FOOTAGE...........................8
SOME CRUCIAL CASE LAWS..........................................................................................................9
SC DECISION TAKEN FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SECTION 65 (B) OF EVIDENCE
IEA,1872...................................................................................................................................................11
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................14
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................................15

2|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

TABLE OF CASES

 Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.

 Shafhi Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh.
 Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer.
 N. Sri Rama Reddy Etc. v. Shri V.V. Giri.
 Alagaaouram R. Mohanraj 7 Ors v. Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly Rep.
 State V. Navjot Sandhu and Ors.
 K. Ramajayam Vs Inspector of Police.

TABLE OF STATUES

 The Indian Evidence IEA, 1872.

 The Information Technology IEA, 2000.
 The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

INTRODUCTION

CCTV is a system that monitors indicators simultaneously indoor and apart from a building and
displays them on a monitor. If you're concerned about the health of your workplace. CCTV
organizations are also being utilized as an additional weapon in the fight against undesirable
conduct in a few nations across the world. The quick advancement of cutting edge advancement
implies that reconnaissance camera film is now constantly recorded on PC plate rather than on
video tape; this is, in any case, a sluggish cycle, and a large portion of CCTV structures are
presumably going to rely on standard video development for various years. By allowing the
arrangement of more successful motorized CCTV structures the joining of PC and perception
development has staggering potential for law prerequisite workplaces.1

In light of CCTV's obstinate existence, nothing is known about how it should be utilized or how
effective it is at achieving a high proportion of its stated objectives. CCTV has numerous
potential applications for public safety, and this has been around for a number of things, like
avoiding wrongdoing, recognizing violations, improving crisis management in relation to IEA
and supporting the management of authoritative spaces, and declining capital dread of improper
conduct. This research entry will show you how CCTV video is pivotal in criminal examinations
and will endeavor to clarify the meaning of recognizing the charged person considering Section 9
of the Indian Evidence IEA, 1872.2 Conditional proof may be used to demonstrate the
presentation of the offence when there is no one to decide the identity of the punished defendant.
Surveillance footage is one type of proof and in addition, this study examines the concept of
CCTV film using various case laws and inquires whether an allegation may be based only on a
single element of CCTV film. Finally, to avoid misunderstandings, we shall examine the
technique of digital proof acceptance in litigation in view of the IEA's Section 65(b).3

1
Thomas Murphy, “The Admissibility of CCTV Evidence in Criminal Proceedings” (Taylor & FrancisJuly
21, 2010) <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600869955044?journalCode=cirl20> accessed
20 October, 2021.

2
The Indian Evidence IEA 1872, s 9.
3
The Indian Evidence IEA 1872, s 65(b).

4|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

To analyze the laws related to the admissibility of CCTV footage and to give a detailed
description about the admissibility of CCTV footage in Evidence law.

METHODOLOGY
The nature of the research project shall be purely doctrinal where only secondary sources of data
will be used to seek to the answers question. Secondary sources like books journals will be used
in the research project. No primary data will be used.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1) What is the concept of video and audio in CCTV footage as evidence?

2) How the CCTV footage helps during investigation?
3) Is CCTV footage is admissible in court?

5|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

CCTV FOOTAGE AS EVIDENCE

Close circuit TV, often known as CCTV, has evolved into a terrible behaviour control strategy in
recent years, and the recordings created employing the observation cameras have subsequently
evolved into a consistently large wellspring of confirmation in criminal approach. With the rapid
shift in development, it has become critical to adjust as a result of the shift, the courts, and even
the legislative body of India, have acknowledged the change and reminded that it. This shift
occurred when digital documents were identified and described as confirmation under the IT Act,
2008. These digital recordings aggregate data, voice, and pictures that are either transmitted or
recorded and transferred or received in an digital format; these recordings are acceptable under
the IEA and are referred to as digital Evidence. As of today, CCTV video unquestionably fits
inside the scope of the term digital Evidence, as defined by Section 65B(1) of the IEA of 1872.

When any digital proof is used as proof, it is necessary to establish the content of the digital
record in accordance with Section 65(b)4 of the IEA. Section 65B's primary function is to purify
confirmation through auxiliary proof. Recently, the Apex Court has been called upon to rule on a
number of issues and in “Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal” 5, returned to
the IEA's Section 65(b) and described the issue by addressing the convoluted predicament of
Section 65 (b). The Court overturned the decision in “Shafhi Mohammad v State of Himachal
Pradesh”6 and held that testament needed under segment 65 b (4)7 is a conditional reference point
for such acceptance of proof via digital record, as held by a three-appointed authority seat in
“Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer”8. The Ld. Court indicated in its recent judgement of Arjun
Panditrao's that the endorsement under section 64 b (4) is also meaningless if the initial report is
prepared under the Court's careful eye for scrutiny. As a result, the position in terms of the
endorsement prerequisite is apparent at this moment.

4
The Indian Evidence IEA 1872, s 65(b).
5
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
6
Shafhi Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh
7
The Indian Evidence IEA 1872, s 65 b (4).
8
Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer

6|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

CCTV EVIDENCE TO BE DEALT WITH ESSENTIAL OR

SUPPLIMANTARY EVIDENCE?

The explanation is that it will be and may be accepted as both secondary and core proof under
certain situations. Virtual stages, for example, Cloud gathering, Systems, hard discs, and other
types of storage devices associated with the pc will be regarded as the major source of
information. confirmation; however, when a video has been restricted from any of the primary
sources of confirmation or moved to an digital device which was initially used to store the
recording utilizing camcorder or the key source is another media, such as a micro sd card or a PC
drive., and gadgets like DVDs, CDs, will be sensible in court.

The visual / voice recordings will be considered as a significant source of data. The recordings
on tape are regarded as "Res gestae," which means that they will be seen as pertinent to the
situation and, moreover, acceptable evidence.9 In “N. Sri Rama Reddy Etc. v. Shri V.V. Giri” 10,
enduring sound tapes or sound reports of any recording will be recognised exclusively after
specific parts are checked, these components incorporate setting up, If the presenter's voice
clarity, and importance have been altered, they will be checked and given that the archive or tape
completes all of the appraisals truly around, then it will be considered a recording. To be sure,
video accounts must also pass a similar type of test in order to be considered genuine
verification, as stated in “Alagaaouram R. Mohanraj 7 Ors v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Rep”11 by its Sectary and another”.

9
Sofiabhambri, “Admissibility of CCTV Footage in Evidence Law.” (SbhambriadvocatesJune 7, 2021)
<https://www.sbhambriadvocates.com/post/admissibility-of-cctv-footage-in-evidence-law> accessed 20
October, 2021.

10
1971 AIR 1162.
11
Alagaaouram R. Mohanraj 7 Ors v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rep

7|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

ADVANCMENT OF LEGAL METHODOLOGY

TOWARDS CCTV FOOTAGE

“State V. Navjot Sandhu and Ors” 12, is one of the most current pending Supreme Court instances
in which the question of digital record management as proof is raised. Setting supplemental
verification of an digital record in a two-judge seat was ruled invalid by a two-judge seat in
Section 6313 and Section 6514 of the IEA isn't banished, whether or not the states of Section 65 B
are met. In any event, when a testament isn't given after Section 65b(4) 15 of the IEA, It was said
that supplemental confirmation might be supplied throughout the criteria established in Section
63 & 65 of the IEA.

For Anvar's situation16, the judge found that the IEA's Section 63 & section 65 have no
consequence on the occasion of discretionary proof utilizing digital records, and that Section
65(a) & section 65(b) of the Legislation are fully implemented and can control the situation. The
fundamental principle of arbitrary acceptance ,when Section 63 of the IEA is combined with
Section 65 of the IEA, it results in Section 65(b), which is a specific arrangement.. The
courtroom recognized the present if Section 65(b) of the IEA is not implemented, a scenario
arises., the Evidence IEA does not evaluate or support the verification of a digital form by oral
verification.

The law was implanted for Anvar's circumstance by the ethicalness of “Tomaso Bruno vs The
State of U.P”, a seat of three-jury of the Federal Court's deviated from the consented job. When
CCTV video should have been utilised, the court assumed that a review in a criminal trial,
Section 65 of the IEA allows for an examination of the intricacies of a study.. In its conclusion,
the court made no inferences in Section 65b(4) or the legislation established in the Anvar case. It
was really referring to the Navjot’s trial, which was decided in Anvar behalf.

12
State V. Navjot Sandhu and Ors.
13
The Indian Evidence IEA 1872, s 63.
14
The Indian Evidence IEA 1872, s 65.
15
The Indian Evidence IEA 1872, s 65 (b) (4).
16
Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer.

8|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

SOME CRUCIAL TRIAL LAWS

K.Ramajayam V. Inspector of Police :- The Supreme Court determined that

encrypted material on CDs without a Section 65(b) certificate is not admissible as evidence. On
behalf of the Petitioner's Office, the judge ruled in the same case as the offended party that when
an digital record was supplied as instantaneous data under Section 62, it was acceptable under
the provisions of Section 65(b).).17 The council held that while Section 2(t) 18 of the IT IEA, 2000
If digital proof isn't clearly destroyed, the entire information base might be used in court. Section
40419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is the suspect’s conviction just as the punishment imposed
on him was upset. The disciplines required for the offenses under Section 449 20 and section 39221
of the Indian Penal Code are additionally authorized. Overall, the accused party is punished to
life in prison. He will be imprisoned for at least 25 years, throughout this period, he will be liable
for any and all benefits. negotiated remedy or request settlements.

Anvar PV V. PK. Basheer & Ors. :- The judgment has far implications in all settings
where even the detective is reliant on digital proof, notably in adversary of debasement
preliminary proceedings when sound video reports are presented to the court on CD/DVD. 22
Where the digital device is supplied without the necessity for confirmation under Section 65 B of
the IEA, the digital device is forbidden, and the Court cannot explore more knowledgeable
judgement of their reliability, as the Supreme Court Judgment demonstrates.

Tomaso Bruno & Anr. V. State Of U.P :- The court initially noticed the idea of the
case and the significance of the CCTV film. 23 As a result, the court observed that the indictment
case was very convoluted. Furthermore, the candidate's guilt is contingent on the declaration of
the lodge administration and police examiner, both of whom claimed not to have observed the
expired's transit to the accommodation. It also implies inconsistencies in the arraignment
declaration, witnesses and clinical assessments, "The court underneath overlooks the relevance
17
K. Ramajayam Vs Inspector of Police
18
The Information Technology IEA 2000, s 2 (t).
19
The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 404.
20
The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 449.
21
The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 392.
22
Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors.
23
Tomaso Bruno & Anr. V. State Of U.P.

9|Page
EVIDENCE LAW

of the best proof," the Court stated. In the current case, CCTV cameras were used, and there was
no shortage of strangling symptoms in clinical reports. Endless supply of current realities and
conditions of the case, we believe that the conditions and proof shown by the arraignment don’t
connect to create a full chain highlighting the culpability of the blamed, & the accused should be
given the benefit of the doubt, and the petitioners' convictions must be upheld saved."24

SC DECISION TAKEN FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

SECTION 65 (B) OF EVIDENCE IEA,1872

24
“Record of Proceedings Supreme Court” <https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/42313.pdf> accessed October
20, 2021

10 | P a g e
EVIDENCE LAW

A paper containing the information contained in a digital evidence that is written, visual, or
appealing media made by the PC when such data is stored, collected, or duplicated, will be
appropriate in any strategies, without authentication or fabrication from the first, as proof of any
content of the first or of any actuality transmitted in that, for which oral validation would just be
permissible.

The SC decides the following positions : -

 A validation u/s 65B (4) is necessary, as well as a condition viewpoint on the fairness of
verification by digital record. The legislation established in Anvar does not need to be
revisited. Regardless, the last sentence in entry 24 of the aforementioned judgement that
examines "if an digital record as such is used as fundamental confirmation under Section
62 of the Evidence IEA, the comparable is satisfactory in verification, without
consistency with the scenarios in Section 65-B of the Evidence IEA" ought to be
explored in the absence of terms under Section 62 of the Evidence IEA. The non-
obstructive wording of Section 65B(1) specifies that, in the case of evidence included in
an digital record, the bear ability and check thereof should adhere to the Section 65B
drill, which is an excellent plan for this goal. As a result, sections 62 and 65 are
meaningless.25
 If the main record is made, the essential under Section 65B(4) is not required. This
should be possible for the owner of a PC, or perhaps a cell phone, by entering the
Observer box and demonstrating that the relevant apparatus, upon which the fundamental
data is originally handled, is assured to be operated exactly as he does. In which the PC
terminates up being on a system or organization and it is difficult to genuinely transmit
such structure or organisation to court, then the primary way for supplying data included
in such digital record is as per Section 65B(1), coupled with the mandatory authentication
u/s 65B. (4). Oral testimony can’t be used in place of a testament u/s 65B(4), and proof

25
Mehta A, Sreenivas A and Ghosh S, “Section 65B of the Indian Evidence IEA, 1872: Requirements for
Admissibility of Digital Evidence Revisited by the Supreme Court”
<https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2020/07/section-65b-of-the-indian-evidence-IEA-1872-
requirements-for-admissibility-of-digital-evidence-revisited-by-the-supreme-court/> accessed 20 October,
2021

11 | P a g e
EVIDENCE LAW

aliunde cannot be provided by an individual responsible for a digital device in place of

the required declaration under Section 65B. (4).
 The Judge concluded that Section 65B makes no mention in terms of the point at which
similar verification should be provided to the courtroom. In Anvar trial the judge
determined that such verification should When a digital record is made, it must be
accompanied by a physical record and should be communicated in confirmation. This
need applies in situations when such a statement might be obtained by the individual
trying to rely on the digital form. 26 In the event that a faulty underwriting is provided, or
where such assurance has been mentioned but If the interested parties fail to submit
information, the court should question the individual mentioned in Section 65B. (4) and
order that the assertion be provided by such persons. It should be carried out when the
document is communicated in verification under the careful scrutiny of the courtroom
without the primary declaration. In unlawful situations, the basic underwriting can be
written to be transmitted by the judge at any point, as soon as the starter isn't completed.
While these decisions were issued in criminal proceedings, the Court determined that the
recently mentioned is most likely going to exercise of reasonable mindfulness in like
manner cases.

In almost any circumstance, as previously stated, the Supreme Court gave general course to cell
associations and organization access providers to keep track of cell phone location records, as
well as other pertinent information for the relevant period in a restricted and if such a document
is retrieved during the evaluation in the relevant time, it must be kept in a safe and secure way..
The use of video conferencing in courts to record explanations is a critical milestone in the
court's hardening of the propriety of digital evidence. Evidence through video conferencing
satisfies the course of IEA in verification being recorded inside the sight of the charged, in this

26
Mehta A, Sreenivas A and Ghosh S, “Section 65B of the Indian Evidence IEA, 1872: Requirements for
Admissibility of Digital Evidence Revisited by the Supreme Court”
<https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2020/07/section-65b-of-the-indian-evidence-IEA-1872-
requirements-for-admissibility-of-digital-evidence-revisited-by-the-supreme-court/> accessed 20 October,
2021

12 | P a g e
EVIDENCE LAW

way wiping out any complaint or dismissal.27 The Jury deemed this crucial, considering that
telephony & online access providers are typically required to safeguard and keep track of digital
call & web log information for a one-year span. Unless the cops or others are unable to access or
secure such data, documents but fail to obtain the confirmation, within that time frame, the
creation of a presentation given after the start of primer will very likely reveal the odd facts. A
flawed attempt to contest the legality of a verification under Section 65B(4) would be one-sided
since the digital copy might be absent. The Supreme Courtroom went on to say that appropriate
norms and titles should be laid out under Information Technology Act, 2000, adding for the
upkeep of data drew in with primer of offences, their confinement, rule chain of care, venture &
record support, for the entire range of beginners and solicitations.

CONCLUSION

27
Limited MTP, “Admissibility of Digital Evidence in Indian Courts” (MyAdvo.inJuly 24, 2018)
<https://www.myadvo.in/blog/admissibility-of-digital-evidence-in-indian-courts> accessed 20 October, 2021

13 | P a g e
EVIDENCE LAW

CCTV cameras may now be found almost anywhere to monitor undesirable conduct. On a few of
cases, law enforcement officers have used CCTV video to deal with undesirable behaviour and
apprehend gangsters. The CCTV captures an accurate image of the events, and the Courts have a
significant impact on its credibility as a result of its accuracy. Following the enactment of
Section 65(b) of the IEA, the Supreme Court provided a couple of options centred on the
worthiness of digital confirmation. Digital records are acceptable in both primary and secondary
types of evidence, depending on how they are specific, limited in their ability to treat or regulate,
have actual guardianship, are material, and dependable. An important criterion that should not be
overlooked is the check under Region 65B(4), without which an digital record as Secondary
Evidence isn't admissible, provided that it is implausible that CCTV would not be OK in court if
it is in proper form..28

It is frequently used as sufficient corroboration if the observation video is solid, the source of the
recording is recognised, and it fulfils the requirements of Section 65(b) of the IEA. A validated
case can be formed based on certain CCTV features. CCTV verification cannot be considered
equal to observe declaration since spectators' assertions may differ from one another and they
have the affinity and capacity to amend their assertions. In any instance, high-quality CCTV
footage reveals the true nature of the incident, and specific documentation may be used to solve
the crime and identify the perpetrator.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

28
Sofiabhambri, “Admissibility of CCTV Footage in Evidence Law.” (Sbhambriadvocates June 7, 2021)
<https://www.sbhambriadvocates.com/post/admissibility-of-cctv-footage-in-evidence-law> accessed October
20, 2021

14 | P a g e
EVIDENCE LAW

ONLINE SOURCES

1) Thomas Murphy, “The Admissibility of CCTV Evidence in Criminal Proceedings”

(Taylor & FrancisJuly 21, 2010)
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600869955044?
journalCode=cirl20> accessed 20 October, 2021.
2) Sofiabhambri, “Admissibility of CCTV Footage in Evidence Law.”
(SbhambriadvocatesJune 7, 2021)
<https://www.sbhambriadvocates.com/post/admissibility-of-cctv-footage-in-
evidence-law> accessed 20 October, 2021.
3) Mehta A, Sreenivas A and Ghosh S, “Section 65B of the Indian Evidence IEA,
1872: Requirements for Admissibility of Digital Evidence Revisited by the
Supreme Court” <https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2020/07/section-
65b-of-the-indian-evidence-IEA-1872-requirements-for-admissibility-of-digital-
evidence-revisited-by-the-supreme-court/> accessed 20 October, 2021
4) Limited MTP, “Admissibility of Digital Evidence in Indian Courts”
(MyAdvo.inJuly 24, 2018) <https://www.myadvo.in/blog/admissibility-of-digital-
evidence-in-indian-courts> accessed 20 October, 2021
5) “Record of Proceedings Supreme Court”
<https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/42313.pdf> accessed October 20, 2021

15 | P a g e