### Accused Entitled to Inspect Electronic Evidence Involving Victim Privacy; Cloned Copies Not Mandated in Sexual Offence Cases

The petitioner is an accused facing trial for offences under Section 65(2) of the BNSS and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act (S.C. No. 23 of 2024).

During the trial, the petitioner moved an application on 15/01/2026 seeking copies of a CD and Pen Drive filed with the charge sheet.

The Trial Court, vide order dated 05/02/2026, partly allowed the application, permitting inspection but declining to provide physical copies.

The petitioner challenged this order under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., arguing that the accused has a constitutional right to receive all documents relied upon by the prosecution to ensure a fair trial.

The State opposed the petition, noting that the electronic media contained Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and that hard copies of the transcripts had already been provided.

1. Whether the electronic records (CD and Pen Drive) seized during the investigation qualify as "documents" that must be furnished to the accused under the procedural law.

2. Whether the Court is justified in providing only inspection, rather than cloned copies, of electronic records in cases involving the privacy and identity of a victim.

The court relied on Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) regarding the High Court's inherent powers and Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. (analogous to B.N.S.S. provisions) regarding the supply of documents to the accused.

It primarily applied the precedent established by the Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala and Another (2020) 9 SCC 161, which holds that electronic records are "documents" under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The rule dictates that while cloned copies should ordinarily be provided, the court may restrict access to mere inspection to balance the accused's right to a fair trial against the victim's right to privacy and dignity.

The Court reviewed the Trial Court's decision through the lens of the P. Gopalkrishnan guidelines. It noted that the Supreme Court explicitly addressed the "conundrum" of memory cards/pen drives, classifying them as documents but carving out an exception for cases where sharing cloned copies might impinge upon the privacy or identity of the complainant.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court had exercised "judicious discretion" by allowing the petitioner and his counsel to inspect the CD/Pen Drive under controlled conditions.

Since the statements of the prosecutrix were already recorded and the hard copies were available, the Court found that the petitioner’s right to an effective defense was sufficiently protected without the need for physical copies of the electronic media, which carries a risk of misuse.

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Trial Court’s order dated 05/02/2026. All pending applications were closed without costs.