Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the accused cannot be denied the right to view the pen drive containing CCTV footage forming part of the prosecution files for the defense of his case as part of his right to a fair trial.

“The right of the accused to defend a case is a salutary right and therefore the accused has the right of access to documents including digital documents (excluding them, they contain the privacy of the victim) as held in Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. AIR 1996 SC 1393)). Thus, such a right could not be denied and such denial is not due process.”

The revision petitioner was accused of having committed offenses punishable under Sections 447 (punishment for criminal trespass) and 354 (assault or criminal force for outrage of modesty of woman) of the IPC and sexual assault and sexual harassment under the POCSO Act.

The petitioner filed the application to view the pen drive containing CCTV footage obtained from the residence of the accused which was filed in the Special Fast Track Court.

The Special Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea, stating that the pen drive did not have CCTV footage and that the yard of the house was not covered by the CCTV camera.

The petitioner filed the criminal revision application in the High Court to set aside the order of the Special Court and to allow him to view the pen drive containing the CCTV footage.

The prosecutor argued that the original CCTV footage from his house was with the petitioner himself and there was no need for an examination of the pen drive filed before the Court.

The court stated that the accused cannot be denied the right to view digital documents such as CCTV images without violating the victim’s privacy in defense of his case.

Thus, the Court stated that the order of the Special Court denying the petitioner the right to view the CCTV footage was not justified.

As such, the revision petition was allowed. The Court directed the Special Court to allow the petitioner and his counsel to view the CCTV footage within two days when the alleged incident took place before the commencement of the trial or during the trial.

Counsel for the petitioners: Advocate Resmi Nandanan

Counsel for the Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George

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

Case Title: Aji v State of Kerala

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 729