In a pivotal ruling affirming the rights of the accused, the Kerala High Court has held that an accused person is entitled to access case documents, including digital evidence, unless they intrude upon the privacy of the victim. The judgment, delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen on November 8, 2024, in Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1218 of 2024, marks an essential precedent in ensuring fair trial rights while balancing victim privacy.
Background of the Case
The case involved Aji, aged 47, from Pathanamthitta district, who faced charges under Sections 447 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The charges were based on two alleged incidents dated March 13 and 14, 2021.
The accused, represented by Advocate Resmi Nandanan, filed a petition to view CCTV visuals that were part of the prosecution’s evidence. These visuals, captured at the accused’s residence and produced in pendrives, were argued to be critical to Aji’s defense. The prosecution, represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George, opposed the request, stating that the pendrive lacked coverage of the alleged incident locations and that the original footage remained with the accused.
Legal Issues Considered
The case raised significant legal questions:
1. Right of the Accused to Access Evidence:
The petitioner argued that the pendrives contained CCTV footage vital for his defense and that denying access violated his right to a fair trial. The defense cited previous judgments upholding the rights of the accused to examine evidence against them.
2. Admissibility of Digital Evidence:
The prosecution contended that the pendrive lacked a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making its examination unnecessary. This posed the question of whether the accused could still use such evidence to challenge the prosecution’s case.
3. Privacy Concerns:
The court also balanced the accused’s rights against the potential impact on the privacy of the complainant, as certain evidence could indirectly reveal sensitive details about the victim.
Observations of the Court
Justice Badharudeen made critical observations regarding the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the judicial system:
– Right to Fair Trial:
“The right of the accused to defend a case is a salutary right, and therefore the accused has a right of access to the documents, including digital documents, provided they do not compromise the privacy of the victim.”
– Role of Section 65B:
While admissibility of digital evidence is contingent on compliance with Section 65B certification, the court clarified that mere absence of such certification does not preclude an accused from seeking to examine the evidence during trial preparation.
– Judicial Responsibility:
The court criticized the lower court’s decision to deny access, stating that such denial undermines the principles of fair trial and procedural justice.
Decision of the Court
The High Court set aside the Fast Track Special Court’s order dated September 30, 2024, which had dismissed the petitioner’s request to view the pendrive contents. It directed the Special Court to allow the petitioner and his counsel to examine the footage, specifically seeking visuals from March 13 and 14, 2021, at a designated time before or during the trial.
The court also noted that while the accused could access this evidence, the admissibility of the footage, given the absence of Section 65B certification, would be determined during trial proceedings.
