Accused Has Right to View Digital Documents Forming Part of Prosecution Record Without Invading Victim’s Privacy: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen He stated that, as part of the defendant’s right to a fair trial, he cannot be denied the right to view the pen drive containing the CCTV images in the prosecution records in order to defend his case.

“The right of the accused to defend a case is a saving right and therefore the accused has the right to access documents, including digital documents (except those involving the privacy of the victim as in the case of Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala (HAVA 1996 SC 1393)). Therefore, it is not possible to deny such a right and such a denial is not a fair trial.”

The revision petitioner has been accused of committing offenses punishable under Section 447 (punishment for trespass) and 354 (assault or criminal force likely to outrage the chastity of a woman) of the IPC and sexual assault and sexual harassment under the POCSO Act.

The petitioner applied to the Fast Track Special Court to view the flash drive containing CCTV images obtained from the defendant’s house.

The Special Court rejected the plaintiff’s application, stating that there were no CCTV images in the pen memory and that the courtyard of the house was outside the coverage area of ​​the CCTV cameras.

The petitioner filed a sentence revision petition in the High Court seeking to set aside the order of the Special Court and allow him to view the pen drive containing the CCTV images.

The Public Prosecutor argued that the plaintiff had the original CCTV images from his home and that there was no need to examine the pen drive submitted to the Court.

The court stated that the defendant cannot be denied the right to view digital documents, such as CCTV images, without violating the victim’s privacy while defending his case.

Therefore, the Court stated that the decision of the Special Court denying the plaintiff the right to view the CCTV footage cannot be justified.

Thus, the Revision Petition was allowed. The Court directed the Special Court to allow the plaintiff and his Counsel to view the CCTV footage for two days if the alleged incident occurred before the commencement of the trial or during the trial.

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lawyer Official Nandanan

Participants’ Lawyer: Senior Prosecutor Renjith George

Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1218 of 2024

Case Title: Aji v. State of Kerala

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 729