Crime-scene videography and flexible electronic evidence rules were endorsed for phased implementation and justice-based admissibility

Crime-scene videography was endorsed as a best-practice measure to improve criminal investigations, preserve crucial evidence, and strengthen rule-of-law administration, with phased nationwide implementation, a central oversight body, and governmental support and funding directed for rollout. On electronic evidence, the document states that the Section 65B(4) certificate is not invariably required where the party producing the electronic record is not in possession of the device, and that the requirement may be relaxed where justice so requires. The discussion thus links investigatory modernisation with a more flexible approach to admissibility safeguards for electronic records.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether crime-scene videography should be introduced as a desirable and acceptable best practice in police investigation through a phased, centrally driven implementation plan with an oversight mechanism; (ii) whether the certificate requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory in every case, including where the party producing electronic evidence is not in possession of the device.

Issue (i): Whether crime-scene videography should be introduced as a desirable and acceptable best practice in police investigation through a phased, centrally driven implementation plan with an oversight mechanism.

Analysis: The record showed broad support from investigating agencies and States for use of videography, along with practical concerns relating to infrastructure, training, funding, storage, and admissibility. The Court accepted the Committee's assessment that videography of crime scenes can materially improve criminal justice administration, capture crucial evidence, and strengthen the rule of law. It approved the centrally driven plan of action and the suggested timeline, and directed the setting up of a Central Oversight Body to supervise phased implementation and secure governmental support and funding.

Conclusion: Crime-scene videography was approved for phased introduction, and the implementation plan with an oversight mechanism was directed to be carried out.

Issue (ii): Whether the certificate requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory in every case, including where the party producing electronic evidence is not in possession of the device.

Analysis: The legal position on electronic evidence was clarified by holding that a party who is not in possession of the device from which the electronic document is produced cannot be required to furnish the certificate under Section 65B(4). The requirement was treated as procedural and capable of relaxation by the Court where the interests of justice so require.

Conclusion: The certificate requirement under Section 65B(4) was held not to be inexorable in every case and could be relaxed where the producer is not in possession of the device.

Final Conclusion: The Court approved a nationwide, phased framework for introducing videography in investigation and affirmed a flexible approach to admissibility of electronic evidence, while retaining the matter for further progress monitoring.

Ratio Decidendi: Electronic evidence may be received subject to authenticity safeguards, and the certificate under Section 65B(4) is not invariably required where the producing party is not in possession of the device; investigative videography may be introduced as a phased best-practice measure under judicial oversight.

---