LLM Practical Training: Law teaching on latest Supreme court judgment on Electronic Evidence and Video Recordings

Good morning, everyone. Today, we’ll journey together through the fascinating world of video recordings as evidence in Indian courts. By the end, you’ll understand how a simple video from a raid became the centerpiece of a Supreme Court landmark ruling in Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1117).

1. The Raid That Sparked a Legal Story

Early one morning in Akot, Maharashtra, officers conducted a raid under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. They seized 147 kg of ganja and recorded every move with a professional videographer’s camera. That continuous footage captured suspects entering a field, officers searching rooms, and the moment contraband was placed into sealed bags.

Students, imagine watching that video and knowing it’s the exact sequence of events—no memories to fade, no confusion over who said what. But how do we ensure the court trusts this video?

2. Section 65B: Turning Video into Legal Gold

Under the Evidence Act, electronic records—like videos—are considered documents. However, to admit them, we rely on Section 65B, which says:

·       Certificate Requirement (Section 65B(4))

A responsible person (for example, the videographer) signs a certificate explaining:

a.       Which device made the recording.

b.      When and how it was recorded.

c.       Any steps taken to process or transfer the file.

Once that certificate is attached, the video becomes a fully recognized document in court—no longer just pixels but a legal record.

3. Keeping the Video Untouched: Chain of Custody

Before certification, the video must be preserved carefully:

·       Seal the original storage media (SD card or DVR) the moment it’s taken from the camera.

·       Log every time someone handles or copies the file.

·       Store it securely so no one can tamper with the recording.

This chain of custody record proves the video is the same from camera to courtroom.

4. The High Court’s Roadblock: Unnecessary Hurdles

At trial, the video—backed by its certificate—helped secure convictions. But the Bombay High Court ordered a retrial, arguing that:

1.       The video had to be played during each witness’s testimony.

2.       Each witness needed to narrate every action they saw on camera.

3.       Transcripts of the entire footage were mandatory.

They treated the video like a book that needed someone to read every page aloud—a requirement never intended by law.

5. The Supreme Court’s Restoration: Let the Video Speak

The Supreme Court stepped in and clarified:

1.       Certified Video = Document

A video with a valid Section 65B(4) certificate stands on its own as documentary evidence. No witness narration or transcript is required for admissibility.

2.       Optional Explanation

If a judge finds part of the video hard to understand, they may call someone to explain specific segments under Section 391 CrPC. This is a discretionary power, not a blanket rule.

3.       Retrial Only for True Emergencies

Retrials are reserved for serious errors—like courts lacking jurisdiction or parties being denied key evidence—rather than procedural hiccups in video presentation.

4.      No Transcript Mandate

Forcing full transcripts would bog down every case with unnecessary work, shifting focus from truth to technicalities.

6. Why This Matters for You

As future law graduates:

·       Remember that Section 65B turns electronic records into documents—focus on understanding certificate requirements.

·       Appreciate the importance of chain of custody for every piece of evidence.

·       Recognize the Supreme Court’s balanced approach: videos need certification but not endless narration.

·       Understand that retrials are exceptional; procedural errors alone won’t automatically earn a second trial.

By mastering these principles, you’ll be well-equipped to analyze and argue cases involving digital evidence. The Kailash judgment ensures that when the future calls for cameras in courtrooms, the law is ready to let video evidence speak clearly and fairly.

Print Page