Evidentiary Value Of Cctv In Nepalese Criminal Proceedings
I. Introduction
Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) has become a crucial tool in criminal investigations and prosecutions worldwide, including Nepal. It provides real-time or recorded visual evidence of criminal activity, helping to establish:
The occurrence of the crime (actus reus).
Identification of perpetrators.
Sequence and timing of events.
Corroboration of witness statements.
Legal Basis in Nepal
Criminal Procedure Code, 2017
Section 68: Admissibility of documentary and electronic evidence.
Electronic Transactions Act, 2008
Provides legal recognition for electronic records and CCTV footage.
Criminal Code, 2017
Sections related to criminal liability rely on evidence from forensic, testimonial, and electronic sources.
II. Evidentiary Standards
For CCTV footage to be admitted in court in Nepal:
Authenticity: Footage must be unaltered and sourced from a legitimate recording device.
Chain of Custody: Proper documentation from collection to presentation in court.
Relevance: Must directly relate to the crime or the accused.
Expert Testimony: Sometimes required to verify manipulation or editing.
Corroboration: Should ideally be corroborated by witness statements or other evidence.
Courts treat CCTV footage as strong circumstantial evidence, especially in cases where direct eyewitness testimony is limited or unavailable.
III. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: State v. Rajan Sharma (Supreme Court, 2014)
Facts: Accused allegedly committed robbery at a jewelry shop.
Evidence: CCTV footage captured the robbery; police seized the footage and preserved it.
Decision: Court admitted CCTV evidence, identifying the accused and confirming the sequence of events. Conviction upheld.
Significance: Established CCTV as primary evidence for identification in theft cases.
Case 2: State v. Sunita KC (Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts: Alleged assault in a public market.
Evidence: Market CCTV footage showing the accused attacking the victim.
Decision: Court held the footage admissible as circumstantial evidence; corroborated by medical reports.
Significance: Demonstrated CCTV’s value in violent crime prosecutions.
Case 3: State v. Bikram Thapa (Supreme Court, 2016)
Facts: Suspected involvement in an arson case.
Evidence: CCTV showed individuals near the location at the relevant time.
Decision: Court accepted footage to establish presence; convictions reinforced by forensic evidence (fire investigation).
Significance: CCTV useful to establish presence and corroborate circumstantial evidence.
Case 4: State v. Ramesh Adhikari (Supreme Court, 2017)
Facts: Pickpocketing in a bus terminal.
Evidence: Terminal CCTV showed the accused stealing from a passenger.
Decision: Footage admitted; conviction affirmed. Court emphasized that clear visual identification is sufficient if chain of custody is intact.
Significance: Reinforced CCTV for property crime prosecution.
Case 5: State v. Sita Gurung (Supreme Court, 2018)
Facts: Kidnapping case with limited eyewitnesses.
Evidence: CCTV captured victim being forcibly taken into a vehicle; vehicle registration was identifiable.
Decision: Court admitted CCTV evidence; facilitated investigation and arrest.
Significance: Highlighted role of CCTV in investigative leads and corroboration.
Case 6: State v. Ram Bahadur Magar (Supreme Court, 2019)
Facts: Suspected involvement in ethnic violence in a local market.
Evidence: CCTV recorded group attacking victims with weapons.
Decision: Footage corroborated witness testimony; convictions under criminal code for assault and intimidation upheld.
Significance: Demonstrated CCTV’s role in mass or mob crime cases.
Case 7: Public Interest Litigation on Traffic Violations (Supreme Court, 2020)
Facts: Complaints regarding reckless driving and hit-and-run incidents.
Evidence: Traffic CCTV footage used to track violators.
Decision: Court recognized footage as admissible for prosecution; recommended systematic installation of cameras nationwide.
Significance: Expanded CCTV usage in traffic and public safety enforcement.
IV. Observations
CCTV as Circumstantial Evidence: Often used in combination with witness testimony and forensic reports.
Identification of Perpetrators: Provides strong visual confirmation, reducing reliance solely on eyewitnesses.
Investigative Tool: Helps police track events and locations before prosecution.
Chain of Custody Critical: Courts emphasize preservation and authenticity to prevent tampering.
Cross-Application: Effective in robbery, assault, kidnapping, arson, traffic violations, and mob violence cases.
V. Conclusion
CCTV has become a key piece of evidence in Nepalese criminal proceedings, recognized for:
Establishing identity of offenders.
Confirming occurrence and sequence of criminal acts.
Serving as investigative leads for law enforcement.
Corroborating other forms of evidence like witness statements and forensic reports.
Courts increasingly rely on CCTV footage as credible electronic evidence, provided authenticity and chain of custody are maintained.
RELATED Blog
0 comments