The advent of technology has transformed the landscape of criminal trials in India. With increasing reliance on electronic evidence—CCTV footage, audio recordings, and videos—courts are often confronted with questions about admissibility and procedure. A recurring issue is whether video evidence must be played before a witness in court and transcribed in testimony for it to be legally admissible.
The Supreme Court of India, in Kailas v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1117), recently clarified this issue while examining a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court categorically held that once the requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) are satisfied, video evidence is admissible without necessarily being played before witnesses during their deposition.
Background of the Case
- The prosecution alleged the recovery of 39 kg of Ganja during a raid.
- The entire raid was video-recorded, and a certificate under Section 65B(4) Evidence Act was furnished by the photographer (PW-2).
- The Trial Court relied on both oral testimony and the video evidence, which was played in court and not disputed by the defence.
- The High Court, however, ordered a re-trial, holding that the video had not been properly “converted into admissible evidence” because it was not played while recording each witness’s testimony, nor transcribed.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s reasoning.
The High Court’s Position
The High Court insisted that:
- Video evidence must be played during the deposition of each relevant witness.
- Witnesses should narrate or translate what is shown in the video into words on oath.
- In the absence of this procedure, the CD/recording cannot be treated as admissible evidence.
This position effectively made transcription or oral narration of every video mandatory—a standard not found in statutory law.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
1. Admissibility under Section 65B
The Court emphasised that electronic records are admissible as documents once the conditions under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are met.
- A valid 65B(4) certificate authenticating the electronic record was produced by the photographer.
- Thus, the video became admissible per se, just like any other documentary evidence.
2. Playing the Video before Witnesses is Not Mandatory
The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning, observing:
- No law requires video evidence to be admissible only if reduced to a transcript or narrated by witnesses.
- The video is akin to a document—its contents can be viewed or heard directly by the court.
- While explanatory statements from witnesses may sometimes aid appreciation of evidence, that depends on the case. It is not a legal requirement.
3. Role of the Trial Court and Appellate Court
- The trial court had played the CD in open court, in the presence of accused, counsels, and the presiding judge. No objection was raised.
- If the High Court found it difficult to understand the video, it could have:
Called for clarifications from witnesses/lawyers, or
Exercised powers under Section 391 CrPC to take additional evidence.
A re-trial was unnecessary and unjustified.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated:
“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.”
Broader Legal Principles Clarified
a) Section 65B Compliance is Key
- Videos, CCTV, and electronic records are admissible once a proper 65B certificate accompanies them.
- Oral testimony by witnesses may corroborate, but is not mandatory for admissibility.
b) Videos are Treated as Documents
- They stand on the same footing as written documents.
- The Court can directly interpret and draw inferences from them.
c) No Transcription Requirement
- Unlike audio recordings (which may need transcripts), videos need not be reduced to writing.
- Courts can rely on direct visual examination.
d) Retrial is Exceptional
Retrial is justified only in cases of grave illegality or miscarriage of justice, not merely to cure procedural lapses.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has established that it is not mandatory to play video evidence before every witness or transcribe its contents for admissibility purposes. Once certified under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, video evidence is admissible in the same manner as any other document.
This ruling not only streamlines the use of electronic evidence but also prevents unnecessary retrials. It underscores the judiciary’s recognition of technology as a reliable evidentiary tool while reaffirming that procedural technicalities should not obstruct the course of justice.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams