Value of Video Verification

The Value of Video Verification

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.

 

Understanding Power over Ethernet for video surveillance

PoE was, and is, supposed to make the powering of devices easy. You take your camera or other device that accepts power via the Ethernet port, you plug in the RJ45 jack to the port, and you walk away. Inside the head end, you plug the other end of the same Ethernet cable into a PoE switch or PoE injector and voila, power is magically delivered to the device along with the data connection. In theory, all of the normal worries are gone. AC power or DC power is irrelevant, and you don't even have to worry about over-powering a camera that, were you to fry it, could potentially set you back a few thousand dollars in equipment costs and man hours!

PoE was supposed to be this way, but practical reality has diverged from the perfect world concept in such a way that the actual installation is almost never that easy. So set aside the “perfect world” notions you have, and let’s start with the basics, so you can understand how PoE works.

There are four classes of PoE: Class 1, 2, 3 and 0. Each PoE classification denotes a range of power that is available to the end device as well as the power that must be available on the port of the power sourcing equipment (PSE):

PoE Classifications

• Class 1 --  4.5 watts at PoE port; 3.84 watts at device
• Class 2 --  7.5 watts at PoE port; 6.49 watts at device
• Class 3 --  15.4 watts at PoE port; 12.95 watts at device
• Class 0 --  15.4 watts at PoE port; .44 to 12.95 watts at device

In the world of PoE there are two kinds of switches that can provide PoE; the kind that operates with a “guarantee per port” and the kind that operates with a “total power budget”. Both kinds of switching are useful but there is a significant difference between them. If you happen to have a switch nearby, look at it and see if you can tell into which one of the above two categories your switch falls.

A switch that guarantees a certain wattage per port -- 15.4 watts per port, for example -- means that you can be sure that no matter how many Class 3 or Class 0 devices are plugged in, the switch will be able to power them. Of course, these switches tend to be bigger, more expensive and ill-suited for use outside of a nice climate controlled room, but they do prevent errors in power planning.

The second type of switch mentioned above -- the kind with a total power budget -- can only power as many PoE devices as it has power to spare. Imagine that you are working with a 4-port switch that carries a total power budget of 30 watts. This kind of switch could power four Class 2 cameras (4 devices x 7.5 watts = 30 watts needed). It could also easily power four Class 1 devices (4 devices x 4.5 watts = 18 watts needed). Continuing with that math, it would be able to power Class 3 or Class 0 devices, but it could only power two of those types of devices.

Power planning is where the rubber meets the road, and it brings up a challenge in our industry.

What happens if a chosen device (i.e., a PoE powered camera) does not clearly specify the PoE class and instead simply gives an operating wattage? You might think that this is OK since a camera which says “6.01 watts” is within the Class 2 specifications and therefore must be Class 2. But that’s where reality often diverges from common sense. In theory, what is supposed to happen is that a device is clearly labeled with a PoE classification so that when said device is plugged into a PSE device, the power budget has been worked out such that each device will receive its required PoE.

What I believe the security industry needs – right now, since PoE is happening today -- is clear labeling of the correct classification of PoE on each and every device that uses PoE. It is all well and good to place the operating or maximum wattage on the device, but industry manufacturers need to take the next step!

Manufacturers should label the device, print it on in large type and with bold colors, CLASS 1, CLASS 2, CLASS 3, CLASS 0, or whatever PoE Plus will hold as a classification. It's OK if your device actually only draws 3 watts during normal operation but for some reason is Class 0. Just tell your integrator channel partners and end users by labeling the device in the manner in which it was intended to be used. This lets system designers know the classification so that they might properly create a power plan and buy the correct devices. No one wants to be in the field trying to get a project done on time and only then realize that their switches don’t have enough power for the devices they’ve purchased.

While I am solidly standing on my PoE soapbox, let me also make a plea for PoE classification to be a priority on data sheets and marketing slicks. Some camera manufacturers make wonderful versions of these spec sheets. You’ll find photos, technical illustrations, cross reference charts, and more -- and often not a hint of PoE classification to be found anywhere. As someone who works with PoE, it sometimes seems as though PoE has become the crazy uncle that everyone has and who no one wants to invite to the party. Unfortunately for all of us, the crazy uncle could actually be the life of the party -- he makes it easy to entertain the guests and always has enough cash to pay for pizza -- but we haven't managed to take advantage of him yet!

PoE is supposed to make things easy, and between the standards bodies, the independent PoE offerings, the lack of classification usage, the errors in PoE chip usage within devices, and the propensity of some manufacturers to create Class 0 signatures in devices that draw minimal wattage, PoE's original purpose has been obfuscated in a way only rivaled by the current explanation of the financial bailout.

Why has it become so complex? Who knows! Unfortunately it has, and confusion has also shared a taxi with a lack of education on the road to PoE's widespread acceptance. People see a label on a device that says “802.af” or “IEEE Compliant” and then automatically assume that they can plug it into a PoE switch or midpsan and have it work with no problem. What makes the education problem worse is that often it does work with no problem, and this leads people to the assumption that PoE is really nothing more than Windows “plug and play” for power. Unlike Windows, however, there is no “blue screen of death” when using PoE. Instead there is a device that does not power on, or (in rare cases) a device that does power on followed by smoke, the smell of singed chip boards and fried capacitors, and then what was a very expensive security device becomes an equally expensive paperweight.