The Supreme Court's Definitive Ruling on Video Evidence Admissibility: Kailash vs. State of Maharashtra Sets New Standards for Digital Evidence in Criminal Trial

 

The Supreme Court's recent judgment in Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1117) has delivered a landmark clarification on the admissibility of video recordings in criminal proceedings, setting crucial precedents for how courts should handle electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This decision, delivered by Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan on September 15, 2025, fundamentally reshapes the legal landscape surrounding digital evidence while reinforcing the exceptional nature of re-trial orders in criminal cases.

Read full judgment here: click here

The Case Background: NDPS Raid and Video Documentation

Print Page

Supreme Court: Not Required To Play Video Evidence Before Witness Or Transcribe Its Contents For Admissibility

As far as admissibility of video recording i.e., Compact Disc (CD) is concerned, the author of the video i.e., SW No. 2 not only deposed that he recorded the video, but he also gave a certificate, as contemplated Under Sub-section (4) of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, to make the CD admissible in evidence. Interestingly, the High Court did not dispute that the electronic record was duly exhibited as there existed a certificate envisaged Under Sub-section (4) of Section 65B. However, strangely, the High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the video. In our view, this is a strange and unacceptable reasoning for the simple reason that the CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the Court to draw appropriate inference(s). No doubt, there may be an occasion where to appreciate contents of a video an explanatory statement may be needed, but that would depend on the facts of a case. However, it is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video. Besides that, in the instant case, the search and seizure operation was sought to be proved by oral evidence of witnesses. The video, therefore, was perhaps to corroborate the oral testimony. Even the judgment of the trial court makes it clear that the video was played in court in the presence of all Accused as well as both sides counsels and the presiding officer, upon seeing the video, could spot and confirm the presence of witnesses as well as the Accused at the time of search and seizure. In such circumstances, in our view, a re-trial is not required only to explain the video. {Para 19}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4041 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4646 of 2025)

Decided On: 15.09.2025

Kailas Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1117,MANU/SC/1283/2025

Print Page

How to determine admissibility of transcription of recorded conversation?

It is to be noted that in the first complaint filed by the second Respondent-the de facto complainant, there is no allegation for any demand for bribe by the Appellant. The allegation of demand is specifically against accused No. 2 only. That allegation against the Appellant is raised only subsequently. Be that as it may, the only basis for supporting the allegation is the conversation that is said to be recorded by the voice recorder. The Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, State of Maharashtra vide Annexure-B report has stated that the conversation is not in audible condition and, hence, the same is not considered for spectrographic analysis. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submit that the conversation has been translated and the same has been verified by the panch witnesses. Admittedly, the panch witnesses have not heard the conversation, since they were not present in the room. As the voice recorder is itself not subjected to analysis, there is no point in placing reliance on the translated version. Without source, there is no authenticity for the translation. Source and authenticity are the two key factors for an electronic evidence, as held by this Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Ors. MANU/SC/0834/2014 : 2014 (10) SCALE 660.
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2015

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 6927/2013]

Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan V Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others

Citation;2015CriLJ1259, 2015(1)Crimes90(SC),(2015)3SCC123, 2015 (2) SCJ 253,

Print Page