Electronic record/evidence- admissibility & procedure
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 07 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
I have recorded some video clips by spy pen camera. Now I want to produce it in court as electronic record/ evidence/ document for my two different cases- in first, I am defendant in a civil case which is in written statement submission stage; in second, yet to be file by me for refund money. Data/video originally stored on micro SD card. Regarding this please help me.
1. Is this admissible in court?
2. What are necessary procedures/steps that should be following to produce it before court?
3. Regarding authenticity of video- is it necessary to attach expert opinion/ certificate of accuracy and temperlessness with memory card at the time of submission or it (certificate/opinion) may be produce when opposition raises questions about authenticity or only when court ask/order?
4. For certificate/ expert opinion, memory card should be send to a forensic lab by me or by court or by opposition? And, is the certification must be from a government agency or may be from any private lab.
5. Is it necessary to produce the device (spy pen camera) by which video was recorded? Is only memory card without camera is not sufficient?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 September 2011
your recordings of video clips by spy camera would amount to unauthorised surveillance . you cannot do any such recordings and expect it to be admissible in evidence . please note that such recordings made in a private place would amount to invasion of privacy
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 September 2011
Expert : ajay sethi rightly warns you about consequences of so doing, but like you i am also anxious to know may be one would be subjected to risk BUT if evidence can be used legally or not,okay no matter my mode of procurement is found punishable..
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 September 2011
.in Rk anand case delhi high court observed as follows
A sting operation by a private person or agency is, by and large, unpalatable or unacceptable in a civilized society. A sting operation by a State actor is also unacceptable if the State actor commits an offence so that an offence by another person is detected.
2. A State actor or a law enforcement agency may resort to hidden camera or sting operations only to collect further or conclusive evidence as regards the criminality of a person who is already suspected of a crime.
3. The law enforcement agency must maintain the original version of the actual sting operation. Tampering with the original video or audio clips of a sting operation may lead to a presumption of the spuriousness of the entire operation.
4. A sting operation cannot be initiated to induce or tempt an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime or entrap him to commit a crime.
5. Normally, if a private person or agency unilaterally conducts a sting operation, it would be violating the privacy of another person and would make itself liable for action at law.
6. A sting operation must have the sanction of an appropriate authority. Since no such authority exists in India, and until it is set up, a sting operation by a private person or agency, ought to have the sanction of a court of competent jurisdiction which may be in a position to ensure that the legal limits are not transgressed, including trespass, the right to privacy of an individual or inducement to commit an offence etc.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 September 2011
BUT that all about prohibition of a sting operation which if not duly sanctioned will attract punishment on sting operator.so much said is all okay and intelligible.
The anxiousness of mine is to know about admissibility or value of evidence so collected when it is able to prove a point in issue before the court directly.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 September 2011
in the godhra carnage case DVD of sting operation was not allowed to be led in evdience by court The court of Additional Sessions Judge P R Patel rejected the application, observing that a sting operation carried out by a person without authority cannot be accepted or permitted to be put as an evidence especially when the Supreme Court has deprecated such sting operations
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 September 2011
Thank you Mr. Sethi,the point is now at home, quite clear to me.
Guest
(Expert) 07 September 2011
I also agree with Shri Sethi.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 September 2011
Thanks to all experts for valuable opinion. But something in my mind however I don't know legal aspects about this. I want to share this and opinions of experts-
The video clips which I have, not recorded by any third party but by me, son (joint family member and dependent) of the involved party however without knowledge of other involve party. Recordings are of a general conversation between both parties family members. Contents are not nature of voilating privacy according to IT Act 2000 section 66 & 67. I am not going to publish it in public.
The recording was done only after a definite indication of voilation of oral agreement and denial of facts by other party in future. And it is not about his (other/opposite party)exclusive personal life, but related to my family.
Is it invalid only on the ground that it was recorded without prior information / permission / knowledge of other party?
In this sense, if a person installs cctv/spy cameras in his/her house or shop then footage of thefting or abusing will not be treat as a valid evidence because this act was a act of thief's or abuser's own private act and also recorded without his prior permission/knowledge. In the same sense, if in the background of a photograph, taken by their neighbour, a house is situated and husband beating his wife in his house but infront of door, the photograph can not be use by wife as valid evidence because husband saying - this act is his own private act and photograph was not taken by his permission. In the same sense, a conversation on mobile recorded in the mobile, can not be treat as valid evidence because it was done without permission.
I think a photograph and a video permitted as assuming a asubstitute of eyewitness and his memory. Then, is it necessary to an eyewitness what he see and hear and descibe in court should be with prior permission/knowledge of involved persons otherwise invalid.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 September 2011
installation of CCTV in shop etc to prevent burgulary is in in public interest . in such a case the police can use the clippings recorded to nab burglars and evidence would be admissible in courts .
however in your case you are deliberatley using spy cameras in private place to gather incriminating evidence against other party which would be an invasion of privacy
