Subtitle: When police misuse “material object” status to avoid furnishing electronic evidence contents under Section 207 CrPC
OPENING: THE
SYSTEMATIC ABUSE IN YOUR COURT
It
happens in hundreds of courts across India every week.
A pen drive containing CCTV footage of a crime arrives at the police station. The investigating officer seizes it, documents it, and files a chargesheet saying the video shows the accused committing the crime. The pen drive then goes into the muddemal (evidence room) of the court.
When
the accused’s counsel asks: “Where are the copies of the CCTV footage so we can
prepare our defense?”
The
police answer: “It’s a material object kept in muddemal room. Furnishing not
required.”
The
accused waits. Months pass. The trial begins. Still no copies. The accused is
forced to see the video for the first time during the trial while the
prosecution plays it to prove guilt. No time to consult experts, call contrary
witnesses, or prepare rebuttal evidence.
This is not procedural convenience. This is constitutional
violation.
But
here’s the problem: Police have learned to hide behind a Supreme Court
distinction that actually works against them, not for them. They
misquote the law to justify what the law explicitly prohibits. And magistrates,
overwhelmed and under-informed, allow it.
THE PROBLEM: A
SINGLE SENTENCE BEING WEAPONIZED
The
Supreme Court in P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161
made a crucial distinction:
“If
the prosecution was to rely on the fact of recovery of a memory card,
then it could be treated as a material object. However, if the contents
of the memory card are sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, then
the same would be documentary evidence.”[1]
This
sentence was meant to protect the accused. Instead, police have weaponized it
into a shield for evasion.
Police argument: “The device is a
material object. Material objects go to muddemal. Therefore, we don’t need to
furnish contents.”
What the sentence actually says: “If
prosecution RELIES ON CONTENTS, they’re documentary evidence and must be
furnished. If prosecution only relies on RECOVERY of device, then it’s material
object.”
The police have reversed the logic.
UNDERSTANDING
THE DISTINCTION: “RELIES ON” IS THE KEY
The
Supreme Court’s distinction is NOT about where evidence is stored. It’s about what
the prosecution is actually using to prove the case.
Test 1: Material
Object (Recovery-Based)
When: Prosecution’s case depends on the existence or recovery of the
device itself, not what’s inside.
Example
1: Theft Case - Crime: Accused stole a laptop -
Prosecution’s evidence: “We found the stolen laptop in accused’s possession” -
What matters: The device was seized (recovery) - What doesn’t matter: What’s on
the hard drive - Classification: Material Object - Treatment:
Muddemal storage appropriate; furnishing contents not mandatory[1]
Example
2: Possession of Prohibited Equipment - Crime:
Accused possessed illegal surveillance device - Prosecution’s evidence: “We
found prohibited tracking device in accused’s house” - What matters: The device
exists and is prohibited (recovery) - What doesn’t matter: What data was stored
in it - Classification: Material Object - Treatment: Muddemal
appropriate[1]
The
Test: Is the prosecution proving guilt by showing
the device exists?
Test 2:
Documentary Evidence (Contents-Based)
When: Prosecution’s case depends on the information/data/contents
stored in the device, not just its existence.
Example 1: CCTV Footage of Crime (Most Common) - Crime: Rape, assault, theft, robbery - Prosecution’s evidence: “Video
shows accused committing the crime” - Chargesheet says: “Video footage shows
accused assaulting victim at 10 PM” - What matters: The video content
showing the crime - What doesn’t matter: Just that device was recovered - Classification:
Documentary Evidence - Treatment: MUST furnish copies to accused under
Section 207 CrPC[1]
Example 2: WhatsApp Messages Showing Conspiracy - Crime: Criminal conspiracy - Prosecution’s evidence: “Messages
between A and B show they planned the robbery” - What matters: The content
of messages (the plan) - What doesn’t matter: Just that phone was seized - Classification:
Documentary Evidence - Treatment: MUST furnish messages to accused[1]
Example 3: Video-Recorded Panchnama -
Crime: Fraud, fake discovery - Prosecution’s evidence: “Video shows genuine
discovery process with proper witnesses” - What matters: The video content
showing proper procedure - What doesn’t matter: Just that device was seized - Classification:
Documentary Evidence - Treatment: MUST furnish[1]
Example 4: CCTV in Sensitive Crime (Rape) - Crime: Sexual assault - Prosecution’s evidence: “Video shows the
assault” - What matters: Video contents - BUT: Contents are sensitive
(victim privacy) - Classification: Documentary Evidence (with privacy
exception) - Treatment: MUST allow inspection; copies may be restricted
to counsel/expert only due to victim privacy[1]
The Test: Is the prosecution proving
guilt by showing the contents/information in the device?
THE SUPREME COURT’S
ACTUAL HOLDING
The
Supreme Court was crystal clear about what happens when prosecution relies on
contents:
The Mandatory Rule:[1]
“The contents of the memory
card/pen-drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the
prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a
cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during
the trial.”[1]
Key Words:
- “must be regarded as a document” = It’s documentary evidence, not
hidden material - “if the prosecution is relying on the same” = If
they’re using the contents as evidence - “ordinarily” = Always, except
for genuine exceptions (victim privacy, voluminous records) - “cloned copy”
= Forensic copy with hash verification, not just a casual duplication
The Test for “Reliance”:[1]
The Supreme Court made clear: Reliance
is determined by what the chargesheet says and what prosecution plans to prove.
If the chargesheet states: - “Video
shows crime occurring” → Reliance on contents ✅ - “Prosecution will present
video in court” → Reliance on contents ✅ - “Video proves accused’s guilt” →
Reliance on contents ✅
Then prosecution is relying on
contents, and contents must be furnished.
THE ABUSE: HOW
POLICE REVERSE THE LOGIC
How the Manipulation Works:
Step 1:
File Chargesheet Describing Contents Chargesheet
says: “Video shows accused assaulting victim at 10 PM”
Step 2: Put
Device in Muddemal “Electronic evidence has been
seized and kept in muddemal room.”
Step 3:
Claim “Material Object” Status When asked for
copies: “It’s a material object in muddemal. We don’t need to furnish
contents.”
Step 4:
Ignore the Contradiction - The chargesheet says
they’re relying on contents - But they claim they don’t need to furnish
contents - Because device is in muddemal
The Logic
is Inverted: - Supreme Court says: IF you’re
relying on contents → MUST furnish - Police say: It’s in muddemal → DON’T need
to furnish - These statements contradict each other
Why This is Abuse:[1]
The Supreme Court’s
distinction is NOT “material object OR documentary evidence, whichever you
prefer.”
It’s: “IF
prosecution relies on recovery → material object. IF prosecution relies on
contents → documentary evidence, and documentary evidence MUST be furnished.”
Police cannot have it
both ways: - ❌ Cannot describe contents in chargesheet (signaling reliance) - ❌
But then deny furnishing (claiming “material object” status)
If chargesheet
describes contents, prosecution is relying on them. Muddemal is no excuse.
THE CHARGESHEET REVEALS
THE TRUTH
The chargesheet
is the prosecution’s own admission of what they’re relying on.
Scenario 1:
Evasive Chargesheet
Scenario 2:
Transparent Chargesheet (Proper)
Scenario 3:
Crystal Clear Chargesheet (100% Unambiguous)
THE LEGAL
FRAMEWORK: SECTION 173 AND SECTION 207
Police Duty:
Section 173 CrPC (Investigation Stage)
When
police file chargesheet with electronic evidence, they MUST describe:
1.
The Device: Type (pen drive, memory card, CD), where recovered, from whom, when
2.
The Contents: If relevant to case
–
“Video shows assault occurring
between 22:30-22:50”
–
NOT just “video” (vague)
3.
Indication of Reliance: Make clear what evidence will be used
–
“This footage will be relied
upon to establish that accused committed assault”
–
Not hiding, but transparent
4.
Status of Copies: Are they ready to furnish?
If chargesheet is vague about contents, magistrate should REJECT it
or direct clarification.
Magistrate Duty:
Section 207 CrPC (Trial Stage)
Once
chargesheet is filed, magistrate MUST:
1.
Check chargesheet for electronic evidence descriptions
2.
Determine reliance: Is prosecution relying on contents or just device recovery?
3.
If contents are being relied
upon: Issue order for furnishing
4.
Set timeline: “Copies to be furnished within [X] days”
5.
Don’t accept “material
object” excuse if chargesheet describes contents
6.
Monitor compliance: Check that copies were actually furnished
The Supreme Court made clear: Magistrate
cannot delegate Section 207 duty to police.
The magistrate must ensure furnishing happens. Not just “permit police to furnish” but personally oversee.
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION: ARTICLE 21
Why This Matters Beyond
Procedure
The
Supreme Court grounded this duty in Article 21 of the Constitution
(Right to Life):
“The
right to fair trial is implicit in Article 21. Fair trial means the accused
must know in advance what evidence prosecution will use against him, so he can
prepare effective defense.”
How Muddemal Evasion
Violates This:
Scenario:
CCTV Rape Case - Video shows sexual assault -
Accused doesn’t get video in advance - During trial, video is shown (first time
accused sees it) - No time to: - Instruct counsel about forensics - Locate
alibi witnesses - Find CCTV showing he was elsewhere - Gather medical evidence
contradicting claims - Prepare psychological expert
Result: Inadequate defense due to prosecution’s muddemal evasion
Constitutional
Violation: Article 21 right to fair trial was
denied
Remedy: Conviction can be challenged on appeal as violation of fair trial
right
HOW TO DETERMINE
WHICH CATEGORY: THE FLOWCHART
Simple Decision Tree
for Magistrates:
PRACTICAL
APPLICATION: STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS
When Chargesheet
Arrives with Electronic Evidence:
Step 1: Magistrate Reviews Chargesheet (Section 173) - Is electronic evidence mentioned? - Are contents described? - Is
prosecution’s reliance clear? - If vague: Return for clarification
Step 2: Magistrate Determines Category -
Material object (recovery only) OR - Documentary evidence (contents being
used)? - Key test: What is prosecution relying on?
Step 3: If Documentary Evidence - Issue
order: “Contents of [device description] must be furnished to accused under
Section 207 CrPC” - Set timeline: “Copies to be ready within [X days]” - Direct
forensic procedures: “Use write-blockers and hash verification; document chain
of custody”
Step 4: Verify Furnishing - At next
hearing: “Were copies furnished to accused and counsel?” - If no: “Why not?
Issue order to furnish immediately.” - If delayed: Set firm deadline and warn
of contempt consequences
Step 5: Document Furnishing - Obtain
receipt from accused/counsel - Record in case file - Protect magistrate from
appellate challenge
Step 6: Proceed with Trial - Accused has
copies in advance - Can prepare proper defense - Prosecution cannot claim
“surprise” - Fair trial right protected
PRACTICAL
APPLICATION: ADVOCATE’S STRATEGY
When Electronic
Evidence is in Muddemal:
At First Hearing:
1.
Ask directly: “Is prosecution relying on the contents of the [pen drive] to prove
the accused’s guilt?”
2.
If answer is YES:
–
“Then contents are documentary
evidence and must be furnished under Section 207”
–
“Request: Please issue order
for furnishing copies”
3.
If police object: “Material object status doesn’t prevent furnishing; Supreme Court
held that if prosecution relies on contents, furnishing is mandatory”
4.
File written application:
–
Reference P. Gopalakrishnan v.
State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161
–
State: “Contents are
documentary evidence; chargesheet confirms prosecution’s reliance”
–
Request: “Copies to be
furnished immediately”
5.
Move for relief:
–
If not furnished: “Move to
exclude electronic evidence for violation of Section 207”
–
If furnished late: “Note the
prejudice for appellate record”
–
If furnished without proper
procedures: “Challenge chain of custody”
REAL WORLD EXAMPLE:
CCTV RAPE CASE
The Fact Situation:
•
Woman reports rape
•
Police seize pen drive with
CCTV of incident location
•
Police file chargesheet: “Video
at [location] shows accused assaulting victim at [time]”
•
Video kept in muddemal
•
Accused’s counsel not given
copies
Police’s Argument (Evasion):
“The pen drive is material evidence
in muddemal room. We don’t need to furnish contents. Furnishing not required.
Device is safe; accused can examine it in court.”
Why This Argument Fails:
Point 1: Chargesheet Proves
Reliance - Chargesheet explicitly says: “Video
shows accused assaulting victim” - This is prosecution’s statement that they’re
relying on contents, not just device recovery - Supreme Court: If
you’re relying on contents, furnishing is mandatory[1]
Point 2: “Material Object” Doesn’t
Mean “Don’t Furnish” - Material object status
relates to how device is stored (muddemal = appropriate) - Documentary evidence
status relates to what accused gets (contents = must be furnished) - These
are not mutually exclusive - Device can be in muddemal for security AND
contents can be furnished to accused for defense
Point 3: Fair Trial Right (Article
21) - Accused has constitutional right to know in
advance what evidence prosecution will use - Seeing video for first time during
trial = inadequate defense opportunity - Magistrate is guardian of fair
trial right
Point 4: Section 207 is Mandatory - “Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused… a copy of
each of the following… documents which prosecution proposes to use against the
accused” - Video is a “document” under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act -
“shall furnish” = mandatory, not discretionary - No exception for “in muddemal
room".
Magistrate’s Correct
Response:
“The Supreme Court in P.
Gopalakrishnan case held that if prosecution is relying on contents of
electronic evidence, those contents must be furnished to the accused as
documentary evidence. The chargesheet clearly states the video shows the
alleged assault. This is explicit indication that prosecution is relying on
contents. Therefore, forensic copies of the video must be prepared and
furnished to the accused under Section 207 CrPC. Direct the investigating
officer to prepare proper forensic copies within [timeline] and furnish to the
accused and defence counsel.”
THE COMPLETE
DISTINCTION: COMPARISON TABLE
|
Aspect |
Material Object |
Documentary Evidence |
|
When Applicable |
Prosecution relies on recovery/seizure of device |
Prosecution relies on information/contents in device |
|
Example 1 |
Stolen laptop case |
CCTV showing crime |
|
Example 2 |
Possession of prohibited device |
WhatsApp conspiracy messages |
|
Example 3 |
Seized cash counter-note device |
Video of fake discovery |
|
Chargesheet Description |
“Seized device X” |
“Video shows assault”; “Messages show conspiracy” |
|
Prosecution’s Reliance |
“Device was found in accused’s possession” |
“Contents prove accused’s guilt” |
|
Storage Location |
Can be muddemal |
Device can be muddemal BUT contents must be furnished |
|
Furnishing Required? |
Not necessarily |
YES - Section 207 Mandatory |
|
Why Furnish? |
N/A |
Accused needs advance knowledge of evidence (Article 21 right) |
|
Exception |
N/A |
Only victim privacy (inspection only) or voluminous (inspection) |
|
Supreme Court Citation |
P. Gopalakrishnan[1] |
P. Gopalakrishnan[1] |
THE ABUSE
DETECTION CHECKLIST: SPOT THE EVASION
Police Are
Abusing “Material Object” Excuse When:
✅
Chargesheet describes contents (“Video shows assault”) - Yet they claim:
“It’s material object, furnishing not required” - Red Flag: Chargesheet
proves they’re relying on contents
✅
Prosecution plans to show video in court - Yet says: “Can’t furnish in
advance because it’s in muddemal” - Red Flag: If you plan to use it in
court, accused must get it in advance
✅
Contents are mentioned in FIR as key evidence - Yet says: “FIR mention
is enough; actual contents don’t need furnishing” - Red Flag: Section
207 requires actual furnishing, not just mention
✅
Investigation report describes what video shows - Yet says: “Device is
seized; case closed on that aspect” - Red Flag: Description proves
reliance; reliance triggers furnishing duty
✅
Months pass without furnishing - Police say: “Device is safely kept in
muddemal; no hurry” - Red Flag: Section 207 says “without delay”;
indefinite delay is contempt
ANY of these = Police are misusing material object doctrine
STOPPING THE ABUSE:
MAGISTRATE’S ROLE
What Magistrate Must Do:
1. At
Chargesheet Filing: - Read chargesheet description
of electronic evidence - If describes contents: Conclude prosecution is relying
on them - Issue direction: “Copies of electronic evidence must be furnished
under Section 207”
2. Don’t
Accept “Muddemal” Excuse: - “Device in muddemal
room is about storage of physical object” - “Furnishing contents is about
documentary evidence” - “Both can and must happen simultaneously” - Device
stays in muddemal for security - Contents are furnished for defense preparation
3. Set Clear
Timelines: - “Forensic copies to be prepared within
[5-7 days]” - “Copies to be furnished to accused and counsel within [X days]” -
Firm deadline, with monitoring
4. Ensure
Proper Procedures: - “Copies must be forensic
copies using write-blockers and hash verification” - “Chain of custody must be
documented” - “Furnishing must be recorded in case file”
5. Monitor
Compliance: - At each hearing: “Were copies
furnished?” - If not: “Why not? Furnish immediately.” - If delayed: “Note this
violation in case record”
6. Protect
Appellate Record: - Document all directions for
furnishing - Document all delays or non-compliance - If conviction later
challenged on fair trial grounds, magistrate’s record shows diligent exercise
of Section 207 duty
WHAT THE SECTION
207 ORDER SHOULD SAY
Model Direction:
“This court is satisfied
that the prosecution is relying on the contents of the [pen drive/memory card]
seized during investigation, as evidenced by the chargesheet description
stating ‘[quote from chargesheet]’. Therefore, the contents of said electronic
evidence constitute documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence
Act and P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161.
In terms of Section
207 CrPC, the following directions are issued:
1.
The Investigating Officer shall
prepare forensic copies of the contents of the aforesaid pen drive using proper
forensic procedures including write-blockers and hash value verification within
[5-7 days].
2.
The forensic copies shall be
furnished to the accused/defence counsel and prosecution counsel free of cost
within [timeline] thereafter.
3.
Chain of custody documentation,
including hash values and forensic procedure reports, shall be attached with
the copies.
4.
The furnishing shall be
recorded in the case file with receipt from accused/counsel.
5.
In the event of non-compliance
with this direction, the Investigating Officer shall be liable for contempt of
court and the electronic evidence may be excluded from the case.
6.
The next hearing is fixed for
[date] to verify compliance with this direction.”
APPELLATE IMPACT: WHY
THIS MATTERS
Conviction Challenged on
Appeal:
Accused’s Argument: “I did not receive copies of the key electronic evidence (CCTV
video) in advance of trial. I saw the video for the first time during trial,
unable to prepare adequate defense. This is violation of Section 207 CrPC and
Article 21 of Constitution. Conviction should be reversed.”
Likely Outcome: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
If Magistrate Has NO
Record: ❌ No direction for furnishing in case file
❌ No monitoring of compliance ❌ No documentation of furnishing ❌ Appellate
court sees magistrate ignored Section 207
Likely Outcome: Appeal allowed; conviction reversed on fair trial violation
The difference is
documentation and active magistrate supervision.
CONCLUSION:
MUDDEMAL IS NOT A LOOPHOLE
The
Supreme Court’s distinction between material object and documentary evidence
was designed to protect the accused, not shield the prosecution.
The
distinction is CLEAR:
•
Material object = When prosecution relies on device’s existence
•
Documentary evidence = When prosecution relies on device’s contents
The
consequence is CLEAR:
•
If material object = May remain in muddemal
•
If documentary evidence = MUST furnish to accused under Section 207
The
test is CLEAR:
•
What is prosecution relying
on? (Ask in chargesheet, ask in court)
•
Answer reveals the category
The
abuse is CLEAR:
•
Police misuse by claiming
“material object” while relying on contents
•
Chargesheet proves the
contradiction
•
Section 207 allows no
exceptions
The
remedy is CLEAR:
•
Magistrate issues direction
for furnishing
•
Magistrate monitors
compliance
•
Magistrate protects Article
21 right to fair trial
The
loophole does not exist in the law.
Police
created it through evasion. Magistrates allowed it through inattention. The
Supreme Court’s distinction, properly understood, closes it completely.
FINAL MESSAGE:
FOR JUDGES, ADVOCATES, AND ACCUSED
For Magistrates:
Don’t assume material
object status prevents furnishing. Look at the chargesheet. If prosecution
describes contents, they’re relying on them. Issue direction for furnishing
immediately. Monitor compliance. This is your Section 207 duty, and your
conviction may depend on it.
For Advocates:
When you encounter
electronic evidence in muddemal without copies furnished, ask one question: “Is
prosecution relying on the contents as evidence?” If answer is yes, move court
immediately for furnishing under Section 207. Cite P. Gopalakrishnan. It’s a
settled law.
For Accused:
You have a constitutional
right to know in advance what evidence prosecution will use against you. If
you’re not getting copies of electronic evidence, it’s not a procedural
inconvenience—it’s a violation of your right to fair trial. Demand copies. Move
court. Appeal if necessary. The law is on your side.
For Police:
You can’t have it both ways.
If you describe contents in chargesheet (signaling reliance), you must prepare
forensic copies and furnish them. You cannot use muddemal as a cover for
evasion. Section 207 is mandatory. Comply.
SOURCES AND CITATIONS
[1] P.
Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161 - Supreme Court’s
distinction between material object and documentary evidence - Mandatory
furnishing rule for contents - Fair trial right under Article 21 - Exceptions
for victim privacy and voluminous records
[2] Section 173
CrPC - Police chargesheet filing requirements - Must describe evidence with
sufficient detail - Must indicate prosecution’s reliance - Vague chargesheet
can be rejected
[3] Section 207
CrPC - Magistrate’s duty to furnish - “shall without delay furnish” -
“documents which prosecution proposes to use” - Mandatory, non-delegable duty
[4] Section 3,
Indian Evidence Act - Definition of “document” - Includes electronic
records - Includes information on any media
[5] Article 21,
Constitution of India - Right to fair trial - Implicit right to advance
notice of evidence - Implicit right to adequate defense preparation -
Magistrate is guardian of this right
No comments:
Post a Comment