Should Contents Of Video Be Reduced To Transcript In Words Of Witness Who Created It Or Noticed In It? Supreme Court Answers

The Supreme Court observed that it is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, which partly allowed his Appeal challenging the Trial Court’s Order of conviction and sentence.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “No doubt, there may be an occasion where to appreciate contents of a video an explanatory statement may be needed, but that would depend on the facts of a case. However, it is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video.”

The Bench explained that the CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) is fulfilled, it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the Court to draw appropriate inference(s).

Senior Advocate Anil Mardikar represented the Appellant/Accused while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande represented the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

The Appellant-first accused along with three others were tried for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution case was based on a search and seizure operation leading to recovery of contraband (Ganja). It was alleged that on receipt of information that the accused have stocked Ganja for sale in a hut, after entering the information in the Diary, sending information to senior officer vide written letter and seeking permission, a raid was organized after arranging two panch witnesses, a photographer, a gazetted officer and a weighing scale.

Upon search, 18 plastic packets, kept in a sack, containing Ganja, weighing 39 kilograms, were recovered; from which samples were drawn and sealed. During house search of third accused, five sacks with packets containing Ganja, weighing 107.90 kilogram, were recovered. All the accused were charge-sheeted and the first and second accused were convicted by the Trial Court. It relied on the video recording of the raid to corroborate the substantive evidence led during trial. This was challenged before the High Court, which partly allowed the Appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence; however, remanded the case for a re-trial with a direction that the accused shall stand remanded to judicial custody. Being aggrieved, the first accused approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, remarked, “… strangely, the High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the video.”

The Court was of the view that a re-trial is not required only to explain the video.

“In our view, there is no such requirement of law that Chemical Examiner would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when it is otherwise admissible under sub-section (1) of Section 293 of CrPC. Moreover, from the judgment of the trial court it appears that the Chemical Examiner’s report was admitted in evidence as Exh Nos.81 and 82”, it noted.

The Court added that nothing is there in High Court’s Judgment that any objection was raised in respect of exhibiting the Chemical Examiner’s report and in such circumstances, reason assigned by the High Court for ordering re-trial is not sustainable.

“… in our view, mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material”, it enunciated.

The Court said that to ensure that no adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution for non-production of the seized contraband, documents prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 52-A, inter alia, evidencing preparation of inventory of seized contraband and drawing of samples therefrom, would have to be brought on record.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court further observed that a direction for a re-trial cannot be countenanced and hence, ends of justice would be served if the Appeal(s) are restored on the file of the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

“Both the appeals (i.e., one filed by the appellant, being Criminal Appeal No.449 of 2023, and the other by the co-accused Raju Motiram Solanke, being Criminal Appeal No.457 of 2024), are restored on the file of the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, preferably, within six months from the date this order is communicated to the High Court”, it directed.

The Court also directed that the Appellant shall continue to remain on bail during the pendency of the Appeal subject to the condition that he shall cooperate in the hearing of the Appeal(s) by the High Court.

“The other accused Raju Motiram Solanke who had not filed appeal against the order of the High Court would be at liberty to apply to the High Court for suspension of sentence and bail, which shall be considered on its own merit”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Order, and restored the Appeal(s) for a fresh decision.

Cause Title- Kailas S/o Bajirao Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1117)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Anil Mardikar, AOR Sachin Shanmukham Pujari, and Advocate Digvijay Singh.

Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Aditya Krishna, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Shrirang B. Varma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment