The case arose from a criminal proceeding involving the accused, P. Gopalkrishnan (Appellant), who was charged under various sections of the IPC and IT Act, including charges of rape and conspiracy. The prosecution's key evidence was a video clip stored on a memory card, allegedly recording the incident of sexual assault. This footage was copied onto a pen drive by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and submitted with the charge sheet.
The appellant sought a cloned copy of the memory card/pen drive contents, arguing that it was critical to his defence and necessary for a fair trial. The prosecution and trial court denied this request, citing concerns over the victim’s privacy and the potential for misuse. The Kerala High Court upheld the decision, categorizing the memory card as a material object rather than a "document", thus outside the scope of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which mandates supplying relevant documents to the accused.
You can also read the blog of Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Issues before the Court
The Supreme Court considered two major legal questions:
- Whether the contents of a memory card or pen drive qualify as a "document" under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and thus fall under Section 207 CrPC.
- Whether the accused is entitled to a cloned copy of such electronic evidence in order to secure the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments before the Court
The appellant argued that the video footage was central to the prosecution's case and potentially exculpatory. Merely viewing the footage in court did not allow for adequate expert examination to assess its authenticity and possible tampering.
The State and the victim (intervenor) opposed the release of the copy, asserting that it could violate the victim's privacy, dignity, and could be misused, especially in a sensational case that had received significant media attention.
Analysis of the Court
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the accused and held that electronic records like the contents of a memory card or pen drive are considered documents under both the Indian Evidence Act and the Information Technology Act. Since the prosecution was using these electronic contents as evidence, the Court stated that the accused has the right to receive a copy under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Denying this would violate the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further clarified that a cloned copy of the electronic evidence must be provided to the defense, but with proper safeguards to ensure it is not misused. This can include limited access and supervision during use.
Concluding Remark
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Magistrate and High Court and made it clear that if the prosecution relies on electronic records, they must be shared with the defense under Section 207 CrPC. While protecting the victim’s privacy is important, the Court held that it should not override the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Conditional access to such evidence helps strike a balance between both rights.
