Courtrooms Go Digital: Interview Questions Every District Judge Must Master on Admissibility of Video Evidence

Here is a set of relevant interview questions (with model answers) for a District Judge interview, specifically tailored from the Supreme Court judgment on the admissibility of video recording and electronic evidence:

Question 1:

Q: Under what conditions is a video recording admissible as evidence in a criminal trial according to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Kailash vs. State of Maharashtra (2025)?

Read full judgment here: Click here.

A: The Supreme Court has clarified that a video recording is admissible as evidence if it is accompanied by a valid certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Once such a certificate is produced, the electronic record (such as a video CD) becomes a document and is admissible, without the need for it to be played during every witness's deposition or for a transcript to be made. The certificate must set out the particulars of the device, record the facts of how the electronic record was produced, and be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position.

Question 2:

Q: Is it mandatory for the witness to narrate or provide a transcript of the video content for it to be admissible in court?

A: No, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that there is no legal requirement for a transcript or for witnesses to narrate the contents of the video in court. The electronic record is admissible in its own right if Section 65B conditions are fulfilled. Explanatory statements may be required only if necessary to appreciate the content, but this is not a mandatory prerequisite.

Question 3:

Q: Can a retrial be ordered solely due to alleged procedural lapses in presenting video evidence in the original trial?

A: No, the Supreme Court emphasized that a retrial is an exceptional remedy reserved for cases involving grave injustice or serious procedural irregularity, such as lack of jurisdiction or parties being prevented from leading essential evidence. Mere lapses or prosecutorial omissions in videograph presentation do not justify a retrial, especially when proper Section 65B certification has already rendered the electronic evidence admissible.

Question 4:

Q: What is the statutory position regarding the admissibility of a Chemical Examiner’s report under Section 293 CrPC in NDPS cases?

A: Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the report of a government scientific expert, such as a Chemical Examiner, is admissible in evidence without the need for the expert’s oral testimony. The Court has the discretion to summon the expert if necessary, but their presence is not mandatory for admissibility, and their report stands as evidence unless the court or a party specifically requires further examination.

Question 5:

Q: How should the court handle situations when the content of a video evidence is difficult to understand?

A: If the appellate court or trial court has difficulty understanding the contents of a video, it may avail itself of its inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon parties, witnesses, or lawyers to aid in appreciating the evidence, rather than ordering a retrial. Additional evidence can be taken under Section 391 CrPC to clarify any ambiguity in electronic records.

Print Page