Expert opinion is needed to proove genuiness of video
bhupendra
(Querist) 04 August 2012
This query is : Resolved
Respected expert
pls provide a case law in which ratio should be laid down as "Criminal Trial.....evidence by recorded video........expert opinion is must to prove genuineness of video"
Or
"To prove the genuineness of video expert opinion is must"
Waiting for case law urgently
Thanks
Adv.B.P.Chavan
09860073404
09028636063
ajay sethi
(Expert) 04 August 2012
Video comes within the definition of `document' under section 3 of the Evidence Actthe 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.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 04 August 2012
In the interesting case of R.K. Anand vs. Registrar, 25 NM-8
Delhi High Court, 2009(10) Scale 164 at page 220, the original electronic materials upon which the sting operation by a journalist was based was held not needed to have been taken in the Court custody. In that case in a sting operation a particular conversation between two persons was recorded. Based upon the electronic tape recorded conversation played before the Court, contempt notices came to be issued for subverting and interfering with the course of justice in a criminal trial. In that case the copies of the original sting recordings were called for and seen by the Court. The original microchips and the magnetic tapes were allowed to be retained in the custody of the journalist of the TV channel. Upon the case that that was an incorrect and fatal procedure, the Supreme Court considered the rationale behind it thus :
If the recordings on the microchips were fake from the start or if the microchips were morphed before notice was issued to the TVchannel, those would come to the court in that condition and in that case the question whether the microchips were genuine or fake/morphed would be another issue. But once the High Court obtained their copies there was no possibility of any tampering with the microchips from that stage. Moreover, the High 26 NM-8
Court might have felt that the TV channel with its well equipped studio/laboratory would be a much better place for the handling and conservation of such electronic articles than the High Court Registry.
The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that on the facts of the case, there was no lapse on the part of the High Court in leaving the microchips in the safe custody of the TV channel
bhupendra
(Querist) 04 August 2012
Thanks sir
But my issue is not cleared
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 04 August 2012
No, expert opinion is not must and final authority to decide it is the court only.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 04 August 2012
No,expert opinion is not must as it is just an opinion of a person only and court may consider it or may not consider it and final authority to decide the genuineness of video is the court.
