Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Vivekanand Mishra VS State of U. P. ...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1906 : The Supreme Court observed that the CCTV footage presented in the case was not properly authenticated and did not comply with Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court noted there was no examination of the CCTV footage by a technical expert, and neither the accused nor his mother provided any explanation regarding how the footage was obtained or transferred to a pen-drive. The Court emphasized that the genuineness of the CCTV footage should have been tested through cross-examination and proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly in the context of an anticipatory bail application where the evidence is critical. The failure to authenticate the footage and the absence of a proper certificate rendered it inadmissible and unreliable for determining the accused''''s guilt or innocence.Checking relevance for TOMASO BRUNO VS STATE OF U. P. ...
2015 1 Supreme 278 : The legal documents discuss the genuineness of CCTV footage and the accompanying certificate in the context of a criminal trial. The court critically examined the prosecution''''s failure to produce the actual CCTV footage, despite the hotel manager (PW-1) and investigating officer (PW-13) claiming to have viewed it. The court held that reliance on oral testimony about the CCTV footage—without producing the actual recording or a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act—was legally flawed. The documents emphasize that the absence of the original electronic evidence (CCTV footage) and the non-production of a Section 65B certificate raises serious doubts about the prosecution''''s case. The court explicitly noted that the trial and high courts erred in accepting the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-13 regarding the CCTV footage without the actual recording or certificate, which is essential for establishing the genuineness and admissibility of electronic evidence. This constitutes a direct answer to the user''''s query on cross-examination regarding the genuineness of CCTV footage and certificate.Checking relevance for Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap VS State of Maharashtra...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 239 : The court examined the genuineness of the CCTV footage and its admissibility under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Key issues included: (1) The footage was copied from the DVR-II server (covering platform nos. 1–5) which has a recording retention period of only 12 days, and the copy was made on 18.01.2014—within the retention window. (2) PW-31, the CCTV operator, admitted in cross-examination that the data from the server was copied onto a pen drive and that editing could occur only from the pen drive, not directly from the server, raising concerns about potential tampering. (3) The Panchnama (Exh.36) was executed at 07:15 PM on 18.01.2014, marking the collection of two pen drives. (4) The court noted that the police did not contact the CCTV operator before 18.01.2014, raising doubts about the chain of custody and timing of the copy. (5) The court questioned the reliability of the certificate (Panchnama) and the chain of custody, particularly since the footage was not preserved in a manner that ensured its integrity, and the opportunity for manipulation existed after extraction from the server.Checking relevance for Mukesh VS State for NCT of Delhi...
2017 3 Supreme 385 : The court addressed challenges to the genuineness of CCTV footage and its certification. The prosecution produced CCTV footage from a pen drive (Ex.PW-67/1) and CD (Ex.PW-67/2) seized from a hotel near Delhi Airport. The authenticity of the footage was certified under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act by PW-26, Shri Sandeep Singh, who provided a certificate (Ex.PW-26/A). The court found the certificate to be valid and reliable. The defense argued that the footage had been tampered with and that only one bus with ''''Yadav'''' written on it was recorded, not all such buses. However, the court rejected these arguments, noting that the footage was properly authenticated, the chain of custody was established through seizure memos (Ex.PW-67/A), and the footage was independently verified by multiple witnesses including PW-67 (hotel owner), PW-74 (SI Subhash Chand), and PW-76 (Gautam Roy) from CFSL. The court further confirmed the identification of the bus by playing the footage during cross-examination of PW-67. The court concluded there was no reason to doubt the authenticity of the CCTV footage or the certificate, stating: ''''No reason to doubt the same.''''Checking relevance for Raja Ram Pal VS Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha...
2007 1 Supreme 245 : The Committee on Ethics of the Lok Sabha examined the authenticity of the video footage related to the ''''Cash for Query'''' scandal. The Committee noted that the representatives of Cobrapost.com, who conducted the sting operation, provided unedited raw footage of the incidents, including the full tapes showing the money transactions. The Committee emphasized that the raw footage was supplied in its original form, with no misrepresentation, and that the unedited versions were available to verify the authenticity of the clips aired on Aaj Tak. The Committee also stated that the representatives of Cobrapost.com gave their statements on oath and were aware of the legal consequences of false statements. The Committee found that the plea by the members that the footage was doctored or edited had no merit, especially since the members declined the opportunity to view the raw footage during their deposition. The Committee concluded that there was no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of the video footage, and the evidence against the members was incriminating.
