What video can do in court

By K.T.Sangameswaran

CHENNAI, SEPT. 15. When violence broke out during the DMK rally here on August 12, the police claimed that they had installed videograph equipment at about 35 places along the procession route. Earlier, on June 30 morning, people woke up to desperate shouts on television, depicting scenes of the former Chief Minister, Mr. M. Karunanidhi's midnight arrest from his residence here in connection with the `flyover scam case'.

Only four years ago, did the CBI play in the court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore here, a video containing the recording of the statements of witnesses in the `Advocate Vijayan assault case'. Recently, the Central agency again played a video cassette containing a demonstration by Mr.Ramar Pillai of the `herbal fuel' which he claims to have invented.

Not to be caught off-guard, the police captures almost all major events, political or religious or in which VVIPs or controversial political leaders participate, on video to collect ``vital evidence''.

Do video-clippings have any added significance in presenting evidence before courts? Here again, the evidentiary value falls under two categories. The videography taken prior to commencement of investigation will be a corroborative piece of evidence provided the authenticity of the video is proved, says Mr. K. S. Dinakaran, an advocate.

Video comes within the definition of `document' under section 3 of the Evidence Act and formally it must also be proved, he explains. Just like any other document, the video is subject to admissibility. The voice should be identified and the transcription of the message filed, and the video should not have been edited or tampered with. This requirement assumes more significance in the wake of advances in graphics and the possibility of easy tampering with video-recording using computers. If the video is taken during investigation, the contents come under Section 162 Cr.P.C.(statements to the police not to be signed; use of statements in evidence). As a statement to the police does not have any evidentiary value, it can be used for the limited purpose of contradiction. Here also, the genuineness of the video should be proved.

At the most, the court could use a cassette, if it so desires, in the initial stages for the limited purpose of granting bail. During trial, the genuineness should be established and the ``rigidity of proof is more here'', says Mr.Dinakaran.

However, the use of video as a form of evidence before the court is yet to pick up in the country, feels Mr. S. Raghunathan, another advocate.

The contents of a video taken before investigation starts are substantive evidence, but their authenticity and genuineness should be proved.

It remains to be seen how videograph as evidence is used. It is pointed out that the police could at least put to use video- recordings in cases of major law and order problems for identifying and apprehending those who indulge in violence.

Also, video equipment could be installed permanently at busy intersections and in commercial and shopping areas.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : MTC urges Govt. to procure 350 buses
Next     : Indane releases new connections, plans hike in
           service charges