Introduction
In the realm of contemporary investigations, recorded surveillance footage – commonly known as Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) – has solidified its position as an exceptionally vital piece of digital forensic evidence. However, its ultimate credibility and utility within judicial proceedings hinge not merely on the visual content it provides, but critically on the integrity of its entire post-acquisition lifecycle.
This encompasses every phase: from the initial secure recovery, through careful handling and transportation, meticulous preservation, and ultimately, its strategic presentation for adjudication. Each distinct step along this trajectory is fraught with inherent risks that, if overlooked or mishandled, possess the power to severely diminish the evidence’s probative value, potentially rendering it entirely inadmissible to a court of law. This examination will delve into the recurrent vulnerabilities encountered at each stage and explore their significant implications for the fair and effective administration of justice.
Seizure
Collecting digital evidence is the first and most important step.
Mistakes at this stage can permanently damage the video. Problems include:
- Not securing the scene, which can let automatic systems delete, change, or overwrite data.
- Not using write-protection tools, which can change the original files by mistake.
- Not checking other places where video or related data may be saved, like online storage (cloud), smart gadgets (CCTV, door cameras, IoT devices), or hidden details (metadata). This can result in collecting only part of the evidence, not the full picture.
- Collecting too much or unnecessary data, which can confuse investigators and hide the main evidence.
- If the video is copied in the wrong way, the quality may get worse or the video may change from the original.
- Not recording details of the scene (like photos of DVRs, cables, or device settings), which makes it hard to prove the video is genuine.
- If other people use the device while evidence is being collected, important details like time and date can change.
Handling
How the video is handled after being collected is very important. Mistakes can make the evidence weak. Problems include:
- Opening the original files in the wrong way, which can change hidden details (metadata).
- Not using proper forensic tools, which may damage files or miss important data.
- Not keeping clear records of who handled the video, which breaks the chain of custody.
- Copying files carelessly or storing them in unsafe places, which can lead to damage or tampering.
- Ignoring small details like time stamps, which can make the video look unreliable.
- Lack of training, which leads to mistakes like using the wrong software.
Transportation
Moving CCTV evidence safely is just as important as collecting it. Problems can happen when:
- Devices are not packed properly and get damaged or tampered with.
- The chain of custody is broken, meaning it’s unclear who had the evidence during transfer.
- Heat, cold, or moisture harm the storage devices.
- The evidence is moved without proper tracking or security, making it easy to lose or steal.
Preservation
Preservation means keeping the evidence safe and unchanged until the trial. Problems can happen when:
- Evidence is stored in bad conditions, which can damage the device or erase data.
- No backup is made, so if the original is lost or damaged, it’s gone forever.
- Weak security or no encryption makes it easy for someone to change the footage.
- Poor record-keeping creates doubt about whether the evidence is genuine.
- Not protecting private details (like failing to hide sensitive information) can break the law.
Courtroom Delivery of Evidence
Even meticulously preserved evidence can falter in its impact during court proceedings if not showcased with precision.
- Playback problems: If the video doesn’t play properly in court, the case can get delayed.
- Lack of explanation: Without a clear explanation, the judge may not understand what the video really shows.
- Changed footage: If the video looks edited or tampered with, people will doubt if it is genuine.
- No transcripts: If the sound is unclear and no written transcript is given, it becomes hard to understand.
- Weak proof of handling: If it is not clear who had the video at different times, the court may reject it.
- Extra or irrelevant parts: Showing too much unnecessary video can weaken the main point.
- Not following court rules: Breaking rules, like not protecting privacy or using wrong time stamps, can get the video thrown out.
Supreme Court Rulings on CCTV Footage & Electronic Evidence
| Case Name | Year | Key Issue | Supreme Court Ruling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer | 2014 | Whether electronic evidence can be admitted without a Section 65B certificate | Held that a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records. Without this certificate, such evidence is inadmissible. The provision for the mandatory certificate for electronic evidence, previously Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has been shifted to Section 63 of the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. |
| Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal | 2020 | Applicability of Section 65B certificate when the device is in possession of the opposite party | Reaffirmed that Section 65B certificate is mandatory. However, if the party requiring the evidence cannot obtain the certificate, they can apply to the court to compel the party in possession of the device to produce it. |
| Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra | 2025 | Whether failure to provide Section 65B certificate renders CCTV footage inadmissible | Reiterated that electronic evidence, such as CCTV footage, must meet the certification requirements under Section 65B(4) to be admissible. Failure to provide this certificate renders the evidence inadmissible. |
| Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra | 2025 | Admissibility of video evidence without a transcript | Clarified that a video recording does not require a transcript in the witness’s words to be admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act, provided it meets the requirements of Section 65B. |
| Ravindra Singh v. State of Punjab | 2022 | Whether oral evidence can substitute for Section 65B certificate | Held that oral evidence cannot substitute for the mandatory Section 65B certificate. Non-compliance with Section 65B is a substantive defect, rendering the evidence inadmissible. |
Key Takeaways
- Section 65B Certificate: For any electronic record, including CCTV footage, to be admissible in court, it must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Mandatory Compliance: This requirement is strict and non-compliance renders the evidence inadmissible, regardless of its relevance or importance to the case.
- No Substitute for Certificate: Oral evidence or expert testimony cannot replace the mandatory Section 65B certificate.
- No Need for Transcript: A transcript of the video is not required for admissibility if the Section 65B certificate is provided.
Note: The provision for the mandatory certificate for electronic evidence, previously Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has been shifted to Section 63 of the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
Conclusion
While incredibly potent, CCTV footage evidence from surveillance systems is acutely susceptible to integrity breaches at every point in its journey – from its initial seizure to its ultimate exhibition in court. It falls upon investigators, forensic specialists, and legal professionals to rigorously uphold established scientific protocols, maintain impeccable records, and strictly conform to all admissibility standards. Only through such unwavering diligence can this digital material withstand judicial examination and genuinely advance the cause of justice.
