Accused must get cloned copies of CCTV footage relied on by prosecution, Rajasthan High Court holds

The petitioner-accused faced prosecution for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 365, 308 and 506 IPC.

The prosecution submitted a charge-sheet accompanied by a DVD and pen drive containing CCTV footage of the incident.

Although the electronic media formed part of the material submitted with the charge-sheet, copies were not supplied to the accused when the charge-sheet documents were furnished.

The accused therefore applied under Section 207 CrPC for copies of the DVD and pen drive.

The Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City rejected the application on the ground that no such request had been made when the charge-sheet copy was initially supplied.

The accused challenged that order before the Rajasthan High Court.

1. Whether electronic evidence, including a DVD and pen drive containing CCTV footage, submitted with the police report and relied upon by the prosecution, must be supplied to the accused under Section 207 CrPC?

2. Whether the accused’s failure to request the electronic evidence at the time of receiving the charge-sheet disentitles him from subsequently seeking its supply?

3. Whether furnishing the electronic evidence is necessary to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Section 207 CrPC requires the Magistrate to furnish the accused, without delay and free of cost, copies of the police report, FIR, witness statements, confessions or statements under Section 164, and every other document or relevant extract forwarded with the police report under Section 173(5) CrPC.

The duty to ensure compliance rests upon the Magistrate or Trial Court, and compliance is part of the pre-trial process under Sections 207 and 238 CrPC, as explained in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, and Tarun Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 4 SCC 490.

In Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that fair disclosure of relevant material is integral to a fair investigation and trial under Article 21, and that Section 207 should receive a liberal interpretation.

Electronic records produced with the police report and relied upon by the prosecution constitute documents for the purposes of Section 207 CrPC and should ordinarily be supplied through a cloned copy.

However, where privacy, identity or other sensitive interests are involved, the Court may restrict disclosure to inspection by the accused, counsel or an expert.

The Court also applied the principle that an unambiguous statutory provision must be given its plain and natural meaning, as stated in Nelson Motis v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711.

The DVD and pen drive containing the CCTV footage were submitted with the charge-sheet and constituted material electronic evidence on which the prosecution proposed to rely.

Since Section 207 CrPC mandates disclosure of every relevant document forwarded with the police report, the electronic format of the evidence did not exclude it from the statutory disclosure obligation.

The accused could not effectively prepare or present his defence without access to the CCTV footage, making disclosure necessary for a fair trial under Article 21.

The Trial Court’s reasoning that the accused had not requested the material when the charge-sheet was initially supplied was insufficient, because the statutory duty to provide the documents lies on the prosecution and the Court and is not dependent upon a timely request by the accused.

As no privacy-related restriction was shown in the present case, the appropriate method of disclosure was to provide a cloned copy of the DVD and pen drive.

The impugned order dated 31 July 2023 was quashed and set aside.

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court was directed to supply the accused forthwith with a cloned copy of the DVD and pen drive containing the CCTV footage.