A CCTV system tracks the inside and outside of a building
and sends the indications to a screen. If you’re worried about the safety of
your workspace, CCTV installations in India will assist you in protecting your
property from anywhere at any time. CCTV services are also being used as an
extra weapon in the war against crime in several countries around the world.
This blog post will show you how CCTV video is crucial in criminal
investigations.
We will attempt to explain the significance of
identifying the charged individual in light of Section 9 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (subsequently referred to as “IEA”). In situations
where there is no one to determine the identification of the convicted person,
the performance of the offence may be proven by circumstantial evidence. CCTV
footage is one example of such evidence. Secondly, this article examines the
nature of CCTV footage using different case laws and asks if a lawsuit can be
formed strictly on the grounds of a single element of CCTV footage. Finally, to
prevent misunderstandings, here we will examine the procedure of electronic
evidence admissibility in court in light of Section 65(b) of the IEA.
Video verification adds significant value to security and
operations by transforming raw CCTV footage into actionable, reliable
intelligence. Its core benefits lie in improving response accuracy,
providing strong legal evidence, and delivering broader operational
insights.
Key Benefits of CCTV Video Verification
Enhanced Security and Emergency Response
·
False Alarm Reduction: Video verification
allows trained operators or AI systems to visually confirm the cause of an
alarm (e.g., distinguishing a pet from an intruder) before dispatching
emergency services. This significantly reduces false alarms, which drain
resources and can lead to fines.
·
Prioritized Emergency Response: Alarms
that have been visually verified as genuine emergencies often receive a higher
priority and faster response from police and other emergency services.
·
Proactive Intervention: With live
monitoring and verification, operators can issue real-time audio warnings to
deter intruders, often preventing an incident from escalating further.
·
Accurate Threat Assessment: Visual
confirmation provides detailed information about the nature and severity of an
incident, allowing for a more appropriate and measured response from security
personnel and first responders.
Investigative and Legal Value
·
Strong Evidence: Verified CCTV footage
provides objective visual documentation that carries significant weight in
legal proceedings and insurance claims. It can support or disprove witness
testimonies and other evidence.
·
Suspect Identification and Elimination:
The footage aids investigators in identifying suspects, tracking their
movements (entry/exit routes, timelines), and can also help eliminate innocent
individuals from inquiries.
·
Admissibility in Court: When handled
correctly (maintaining a clear "chain of custody," proper storage,
and technical authentication via a certificate of integrity), footage is highly
admissible as evidence in court, which can lead to early guilty pleas and save
trial costs.
·
Dispute Resolution: Objective visual
records can quickly resolve disputes between customers, employees, or other
parties, potentially saving businesses substantial litigation costs.
Operational and Business Intelligence
Beyond security, video verification offers valuable
operational insights:
·
Remote Monitoring and Management:
Business owners and managers can remotely access live or recorded footage from
anywhere, enabling effective oversight across multiple locations and reducing
the need for physical inspections.
·
Efficiency Improvements: Footage can be
analyzed to identify operational inefficiencies, improve staffing levels during
peak times, monitor equipment condition for maintenance, and verify cleaning or
contractor work quality.
·
Employee Safety and Productivity:
Monitoring work areas ensures compliance with safety regulations and encourages
adherence to best practices, helping to protect employees and boost
productivity.
In essence, the value of CCTV video verification lies in
its ability to transform passive surveillance into an active, intelligent, and
multi-purpose tool that enhances safety, streamlines operations, and provides
legally sound documentation.
Admissibility of E-evidence in criminal proceedings
Where every electronic evidence is being used as proof,
Section 65(b) of the IEA requires that the substance of the electronic record
be proven. The main objective of Section 65(b) is to protect supplementary
evidence. In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Supreme Court reconsidered Section 65(b) of
the IEA, resolving the conflicted status of Section 65(b) in The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court reversed the decision in the case of Shafhi
Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pradesh, holding that the certification
needed under Section 65b (4) is a prerequisite to the permissibility of proof
using testimony. According to a three-judge panel in the case of Anvar
P.V. vs P.K. Basheer, an electronic document exists. The Lord’s Bench Arjun
Panditrao’s recent judgment explained about the certificate under the Section.
By stating, “If the final text is submitted even before Court for review,
Section 64b (4) is not required for Examination, then the situation in terms of
the certificate requirement has become transparent”.
In the case of CCTV, the image is captured by the sensors
and transformed to digital by the DVR ( Digital Video Recorder). Since it
stores data in electronic form, the DVR is an electronic record. If the DVR is
presented to the Court, it will be considered the main evidence by Section
62 of the IEA unless the original document is presented to the Court for
review, and the provisions of Section 65b (4) of the IEA will not apply.
Nevertheless, if a huge proportion of devices are mounted and the data is
collected, It is not necessary to put the whole set up just before Court
because it is technically held on massive servers. The only other choice in
this situation is to transfer the files from the massive server to a CD or USB
and then present it to the Court. Since the USB and CD are not primary
evidence, complying with Section 65b(4) is required.
The person in charge of the server must provide you with
a certificate. The primary objective of the certificate is to ensure the proper
workplace environment of the device from which the electronic record is
generated well before the Court for review, such that it can be known that the
material has not been interfered with by others or ill-treated as a result of a
computer malfunction. The certificate has not been made a requirement to
confirm the accuracy of the content of the computer-generated records.
Mandatory requirement
If the requirements in Section 65b(2) are met, any
information found in an electronic record, which is printed on paper, stored,
registered, or copied in optical or magnetic media created by a machine, is
considered to have been a piece of information (under the Evidence Act) despite
anything in the Evidence Act. If the requirements in Section 65b(2) are met,
the material over which the information contained inside an electronic record
is published, or the optical or magnetic media-generated either by software
where such data is stored, recorded, or replicated, shall be admissible in any
proceeding as proof of any nature of the initial or of any truth specified,
despite evidence or production of the original.
When a claim in the proof is obtained under Section 65b,
Section 65b(4) enables the creation of a certificate that, among other things,
identifies the electronic copy containing the statement, explains how it was
generated, and specifies the system used to make the electronic record to
demonstrate that it was generated by a compliant system.
Important case laws
K. Ramajayam Vs Inspector of Police
In the case of K. Ramajayam Vs
Inspector of Police; Dhanaram and Gunaram were brothers who owned and
operated “Balaji Pawn Brokers,” a pawnbroking and jewelry shop. Around 8:00
a.m., the deceased Gunaram opened the store. Dhanaram arrived around 9:00 a.m.
and stayed for a while before leaving for another job. He was surprised to see
his brother lying in a pool of blood when he returned to the shop around
midnight. He sounded the alarm, and nearby shop owners arrived. Aside from the
homicide, 935 grams of gold were stolen. The plaintiffs’ counsel relied heavily
on the Supreme Court ruling in PV Anvar Vs PV Basheer, which
defined Sections 65A and 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme
Court decided that encrypted data on a CD which lacks a Section 65(b)
certificate is invalid proof.
According to the prosecutor’s office, the Supreme Court
claimed in the same situation as the applicant that when an electronic record
is provided as direct information under Section 62, it is permissible in
complying with the terms outlined in Section 65(b). In the current situation,
vast institutions are involved.
The tribunal held that while Section 2(t) of
the IT Act, 2000 does not explicitly define electronic evidence, the
complete databases could be taken into courtrooms under such circumstances.
Since the defendant was explicitly captured on camera when committing his crime
in this case, the CCTV footage should be considered electronic proof.
The appellant/conviction suspect’s under Section 404 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as the penalty levied on him was
overturned. The convictions of suspects were upheld under Sections 449, 392,
and 302. The punishments levied for the offences under Sections 449 and
392 of the Indian Penal Code are also enforced. The death penalty levied for
the violation of Section 302 is overturned. Instead, the accused/appellant is
sentenced to life in jail. The convicted will be sentenced to a minimum of 25
years in prison, during which time he will not be eligible for any
constitutional relief or plea agreement.
Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors.
In this case, the Judicial Branch has resolved the
problems surrounding the admissibility of electronic evidence that arose from
numerous contradictory decisions and also the procedures adopted by various
High Courts and Trial Courts. The Court has interpreted Sections 22A, 45A, 59, 65A, 65(b),
and 65(c) of the Evidence Act, holding that secondary information on
CDs, DVDs, and Pen Drives is not permissible without even a certificate under
Section 65b (4) of the Evidence Act. It’s been established that electronic
evidence obtained without even a certificate under Section 65(b) of the
Evidence Act cannot be proven by oral evidence, and also that the expert advice
obtained under Section 45A of the Evidence Act cannot be used to make this
electronic evidence permissible.
The decision will have far-reaching consequences
throughout all contexts where even the prosecutor depends on electronic
evidence, especially in anti-corruption trials where audio-video recordings are
transmitted to the court on CD/DVD. In all such places, where the CD/DVD is
transmitted without the need for certification under Section 65(b) of the
Evidence Act, the CD/DVD is inadmissible, and the Court cannot look into more
expert opinion as to their authenticity, as the Supreme Court Judgment shows.
It was also noted that all of these precautions are taken
to protect the origin and reliability, which are the dual key components of
reliable source electronic documents that were hoped to be used as evidence.
“Since electronic records are more vulnerable to modification, deletion,
transposition, excision, and other forms of fraud, a trial based solely on
electronic records may result in a miscarriage of justice”.
Conclusion
In today’s world, CCTV cameras are almost everywhere to
keep crime at bay. CCTV video has been used by law enforcement authorities to
solve crimes and arrest criminals on several occasions. The CCTV captures a
truthful image of the events, and the Courts make a significant impact on its
integrity as a result of its accuracy. After the IEA introduced Section 65(b),
the Supreme Court has issued several judgments emphasizing the value of
electronic evidence admissibility.
It can be used as sufficient proof if the surveillance
video is reliable, the source of the recording is known, and it meets the
requirements of Section 65(b) of the IEA. Based on certain characteristics of
CCTV, a substantiated claim can be formed. Since eye witnesses’ statements
could vary from one another and they have the propensity and potential to amend
their statements, CCTV proof cannot be said to be equal to witness testimony.
Nevertheless, sufficient quality CCTV footage reveals the real event of the
incident, and certain documentation can be used to conclude the homicide and
identify the suspect.
