Admissibility of Photographs, and Photo-Identification, in Court Cases

Adv. Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Nutshell – Photograph Evidence

Photographs are admissible in evidence as documents.	P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala, AIR 2020 SC 1; 2020-9 SCC 161
While considering a case on dowry death, the prosecution argued that a *photograph* was not admissible in evidence as neither the person who took the photograph nor its negative was produced in evidence. But, the court accepted the photograph as ‘no dispute was raised by the prosecution witnesses’.	Shoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2024 SC 4551
A large number of photographs were marked and considered in this case. In para 525, it is stated – the witness “was confronted with photographs of the inscription” There were three sets of albums containing photographs taken by the State Archaeological Department pursuant to an order dated 10 January 1990 (Para 533). In para 538, the Court considered the evidence of a witness as to the “photographs placed within the structure in 1990”.	M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1 (Ayodhya case)
The factum of photo identification (of an accused) by PW 2, as witnessed by the officer concerned, is a relevant and admissible piece of evidence.	Rabindra Kumar Pal v. Republic of India, 2011-2 SCC 490
Nothing prevented the appellant-State Government from producing the relevant *photographs* of the purported pucca pond existing at some spots.	State of Rajasthan v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. , 2022-12 Scale 606; 2022-13 SCR 1
A statement about the photograph made by any expert would not be admissible before examining the photographer.	Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 785
Photographs, tape-records of speeches [Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17] are documents.	Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, 2016 15 SCC 485; Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2011-4 SCC 143
Photo identification of an accused during the investigation, who was seen by the witness at the relevant time.	Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic AIR 1999 SC 2562, 2000-1 SCC 138; Rabindra Kumar Pal v. Republic of India, AIR 2011 SC 1436; 2011 2 SCC 490
Inventory, photographs and the list of samples certified by the Magistrate are admissible as primary evidence. It is a substitute for the production of physical evidence of seized contraband samples.	Nisar Ahmed Bhat, v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 2024 0 Supreme(J&K) 187
The tape record corroborated his testimony, as a *photograph* taken without the knowledge of the person photographed can become relevant and admissible so does a tape record of a conversation unnoticed by the talkers. A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae.	K. K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011-11 SCC 275; R.M Malkani v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1973 SC 157; Yusaf Ali lsmail Nagri v. The State of Maharashtra, 1967- 3 S.C.R. 720

Nutshell – Photo and Video: Relevant and Admissibile

Audio/Video cassettes	Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17
Tape records of speeches	Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329
Photo or video	Mohammed Rafiq v. Madhan, 2018-1 Mad LJ(CRI) 641; Moti Rabidas v. The State of Bihar, 2015-145 AIC 435; Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan 2014-1 Raj Cri C 31; State of MP v. Shankarlal, ILR 2010 MP 717; P Rajagopal v. Inspector of police 2009-2 Mad LJ(Cri) 161; Santhosh Baccharam Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 All MR (Cri)997, 2003 BCR (Cri) 120.
CD	Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, (2016) 15 SCC 485
Photographs including photographs of tombstones and houses	Lyell v. Kennedy (No.3) (1884) 50 L.T. 730
Video recordings	State of Maharashtra v. Praful B.Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053
Audio and video	State of Maharashtra v. Praful B.Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053; Santhosh Madhavan @ Swami Amritha Chaithanya v. State :2014 KHC 31; Taylor v. Chief Constable Cheshire:1987(1) All.ER 225
Cassettes	Tukaram S.Dighole v. Manik Rao Shivaji Kokate (2010)4 SCC 329
Moving cinematograph	Senior v. Holdsworth, Ex parte Independant Television New Ltd. (1976) Q.B. 23)
Film	Rex v. Daye ((1908)2 K.B. 333, 340)
Floppies, CCTV footages, CDs, DVDs, Chips, Hard discs, Pen drives–	North West Airlines v. Union of India 2007 (214) ELT 178 (Bom.)

Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witness Theory

Pictorial Testimony Theory – Photograph Need Not Be Proved.
Silent Witness Theory – Photograph Must Be Proved.

In Santhosh Madhavan @ Swami Amritha Chaithanya v. State (2014 Ker HC 31), these two theories governing the proof and authenticity of photographs were explained.

First, the pictorial testimony theory: It is applied when a photograph is used merely as an aid to a witness in explaining or illustrating his testimony—for example, a doctor explaining injuries with reference to a photograph, or identification of a deceased through a photograph. In such a case, the evidence of the witness will be the primary matter rather than what is depicted in the photograph; and the photographer need not be examined in court, since the photograph is admitted merely to aid a witness in explaining his testimony.
Secondly, under the silent witness theory or communication theory: It is invoked when the photograph itself constitutes substantive and probative evidence of what it depicts, speaking for itself without supporting oral testimony—for instance, an X-ray film showing a fracture, a photograph depicting the accused in a crowd holding a weapon (though the photographer did not notice him), or a photograph of the scene of occurrence of a crime. In such cases, the photographs must be proven.

Presumptions on Photographs and Videos

Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Section 114 of the Evidence Act) allows the Court to ‘presume the existence of any fact ….. regard being had to the common course of natural events‘.

A photograph or a video, by its very nature, speaks for itself. Therefore, the courts in India can commence with a presumption as to the correctness of the photograph or video, placing the onus on the opposite party to rebut that presumption by placing material on record sufficient to dislodge or shift the same.

Invoking this general presumption, the courts in India have consistently held –

‘a mere bald denial of the contents of a video recording is insufficient‘; but, ‘there should be material to show that the video clippings are doctored or morphed’.

Photographs – In many cases a Corroborative Piece; It Can be the Best Evidence also

A photograph, being a document, ordinarily requires proof through a proper witness to establish its authenticity and relevance. However, it need not invariably be proved by examining the photographer, and may be proved through any competent witness capable of speaking to the facts depicted or the circumstances of its production. Once duly admitted, a photograph may constitute primary or substantive evidence, though in many cases it is used to corroborate other evidence.

In Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178, it is held that CCTV footage can be a ‘Best Evidence‘. The court said it as under:

“Notwithstanding the fact that the burden lies upon the accused to establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, prosecution in possession of the best evidence – CCTV footage ought to have produced the same. In our considered view, it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced.”

In short, a photograph or video, once duly admitted and properly proved, constitutes substantive evidence. Though in many cases it is relied upon as corroborative evidence, in an appropriate case it may, by itself, establish the fact in issue, independently and without the aid of other evidence.

Silent Witnesses Theory – Photograph /Video ‘Speaks for Itself‘

In State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. V. P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi, 2019 -1 LW(Cri) 421; 2019-1 LW(Cri) 481; 2019-2 MLJ(Cri) 129, the Madras High Court explained the “silent witness” theory, stating as under:

“115. We may also incidentally notice the developments in the law on video and photographic evidence in the West where the “silent witness” theory is deployed to admit video and photographic evidence. The theory proceeds on the footing that photographic and video evidence are “silent witnesses” which speak for themselves. They are substantive evidence of what they portray.”

The following two foreign decisions were specifically dealt with by the High Court:

(a) State of Nevada v. Archanian, [145 P 3d 1008 (2006)]: The Supreme Court of Nevada admitted the video evidence under the silent witness theory and held as under:
- “There is no evidence suggesting that the composite videotape was inaccurate, that any relevant or exculpatory information had been deleted from it, or that the modifications made to it adversely affected or obscured the content.”
(b) Her Majesty v. Jaiyhi He, [2017 ONCJ 790,]: The Ontario Court of Justice in Canada opined to the following effect:
- The party seeking to tender a video in evidence must show two things to meet the threshold test of admissibility: (i) The video is relevant, showing the crime scene or other evidence linked to the issues at trial; and (ii) the video is authentic — that it accurately represents the events depicted.
(See – End Notes)

Circumstantial evidence be Used – No Particular Evidence or Class of Witness

In State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. V. P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi, 2019 -1 LW(Cri) 421; 2019-1 LW(Cri) 481; 2019-2 MLJ(Cri) 129, the Madras High Court said further as under:

“Referring to the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Bulldog (2015 ABCA 251), the Ontario Court (in Her Majesty v. Jaiyhi He, 2017 ONCJ 790), said: “Circumstantial evidence may be used to authenticate real evidence – Bulldog at para 35. There is no particular evidence or class of witness that must be called to authenticate a video provided the whole of the evidence establishes that the video in question is substantially accurate and a fair depiction.”

“Can a digital video only be Authenticated by an Eyewitness”?

This was the second question raised in R. v. Bulldog (2015 ABCA 251). The question was whether a digital video can only be authenticated by an eyewitness or whether a member of any class of witnesses can provide evidence of authentication.

The answer of Alberta Court of Appeal (in R. v. Bulldog) was “No.”

It held as under:

“[20] [The appellants argue] that Nikolovski sets two preconditions to the admissibility of video recordings – specifically, proof that the video accurately depicts the facts, and that it has not been altered or changed. The appellants refer to the process of establishing these facts as ‘authentication,’ and we are content to adopt that term, since ‘authentication’ simply refers to the process of convincing the court that certain tangible evidence matches the claims made about it . . .
[21] The second proposition, which relies on R v Doughty, 2009 ABPC 8 (CanLII) at para 37 (citing Elliot Goldstein, Visual Evidence, A Practitioner’s Manual, Vol 1 (Thomson-Carswell, 2007) at 2-19 to 2-20), is that there is an exclusive list of classes of witnesses who can authenticate a video in a manner that meets these two putative Nikolovski preconditions: (1) the camera operator; (2) an eye-witness present when the video is taken who can testify that the video accurately represents what he or she saw; (3) a person qualified to state that the representation is accurate; or (4) an expert witness.
[22] Based on these two propositions, the appellants argue that the Crown’s evidence in this case could not authenticate the DVD. They submit (but do not really argue) that the authenticating witness was Reddick, who did not create the DVD tendered, did not know who created it, did not know whether the person who did create it used or might have used options which changed the content of the source video footage, was not an expert in the software and in the format changes entailed in copying the DVD and, accordingly, could not give the expert evidence of the effect of format changes which the appellants say is necessary to authenticate the DVD: R v Penney, 2002 NFCA 15 (CanLII), 2002 NFCA 15 at para 24, 210 Nfld& PEIR 209.
[23] In short, the appellants say that, absent evidence from a particular class of qualified person verifying that the video recording had not been altered or changed in the course of undergoing various format changes, the DVD was inadmissible.
. . . . . .
[34] It will be recalled that the appellants say that, because Reddick does not fit into any of the four categories identified by Goldstein
[at para. 21 of the judgment and consisting of:
- (1) the camera operator;
- (2) an eye-witness present when the video is taken who can testify that the video accurately represents what he or she saw;
- (3) a person qualified to state that the representation is accurate; or
- (4) an expert witness.]
as persons capable of authenticating video evidence, it follows that the Crown could not authenticate the video recording. We assume that the appellants also maintain that none of the other Crown witnesses would fit into those categories, although we observe that Hodge would have fallen into Goldstein’s second category as an eyewitness, had he viewed the video in court and testified that it accurately depicted what he saw. In any event, these categories are not exhaustive in the sense that, if the Crown does not call one of these four kinds of witnesses, the video recording is inadmissible. Rather, other kinds of evidence or different combinations of witnesses may be employed to satisfy a court of the video recording’s substantial accuracy and fairness.”

Should there be Proof – Video not been Altered or Changed?

The appellants in R. v. Bulldog (Alberta Court of Appeal) challenged the authenticity and admissibility of the DVD. They relied on R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197. The Court considered whether the Crown was bound to prove that the video recording had not been altered or changed. The appellants argued that R. v. Nikolovski mandated a two-fold test (i) requiring proof that the video accurately depicted the facts and (ii) proof that it had not been altered or changed. The Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed. It held (paragraphs 26 to 33):

1. As long as other evidence satisfied the accuracy, no evidence regarding the presence or absence of alteration was necessary.
2. The mere fact of alteration did not automatically render a video recording inadmissible.
3. The Crown’s failure to establish that the DVD was not altered was not fatal as long as the Crown had proven that the DVD was a substantially accurate and fair representation of what it purported to show.

The Alberta Court of Appeal said it as under:

“[26] . . . the appellants say that Nikolovski creates a two-part test which must be met before admitting video evidence, requiring the Crown to show not only that the video recording accurately depicts the facts, but also that it has not been altered or changed. This is incorrect.
[27] It must first be borne in mind that Nikolovski was not a case about the admissibility of a video recording (which had been conceded), but rather about identity (specifically, whether a trier of fact could identify the accused beyond a reasonable doubt as the offender by relying solely upon that video recording). The critical passage from Nikolovski, para 28 upon which the appellants rely, is found under a heading discussing ‘Use That Can Be Made of Photographs or Videotapes,’ which clearly presupposes admissibility.
[28] Further, the passage itself fails to support the appellants’ contention. It reads as follows:
Once it is established that a videotape has not been altered or changed, and that it depicts the scene of a crime, then it becomes admissible and relevant evidence.
This statement does not state a necessary condition for admission, but rather a sufficient condition. It does not, even implicitly, preclude admission of video recordings under other circumstances. Indeed, where an alteration enhances a video recording, its accuracy might well be served by such an alteration: R v Jamieson, [2004] OTC 369 at paras 36-37, [2004] OJ No 1780 (QL) (SCJ).
[29] We do agree with the appellants, however, that in some cases Nikolovski has been taken as requiring the tendering party to show an absence of alteration or change: Penney; R v.MacNeil, 2008 QCCS 915 (CanLII) at para 11, [2008] QJ No 1784 (QL); R v Chevannes, 2011 ONCJ 754 (CanLII) at para 16, [2011] OJ No 5937; R v Ellard, 2004 BCSC 780 (CanLII) at para 11, [2004] BCJ No 2914. In Penney, for example, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (at para 17) cited Nikolovski as authority for the statement that ‘[e]vidence establishing that the video has not been altered or changed is a precondition to its admission as evidence.’ With respect, we do not read Nikolovski as stating so broad a proposition, and we see no principled reason to support it. Indeed, taken to its extreme, it could render almost any DVD left unattended next to a computer inadmissible . . .
[30] Other courts have taken a different view of Nikolovski, to the effect that a video recording may be admitted into evidence, even if it has been altered in some way, so long as it is shown to be a substantially accurate depiction of the event in question. In R v Brown, [1999] OTC 213, [1999] OJ No 4865 (CJ), where the Crown sought to tender at trial a security surveillance videotape and enhanced copies, the court stated (at para 3) that, when a videotape has been altered, the test for admissibility is: one of substantial accuracy . . . [T[he Crown must … prove on a balance of probabilities the substantial accuracy of the original tape and the enhancements of it to obtain the permission of the court to tender them in accordance with [Nikolovski] ….
[31] Similarly, in R v Crawford, 2013 BCSC 2402 (CanLII) at para 48, [2013] BCJ No 2879 (emphasis added), the court said that Nikolovski should be interpreted in a ‘purposive’ manner, such that a video recording’s admissibility is not precluded, even if ‘complete accuracy’ no longer subsists, so long as ‘the alteration of the recorded event is not so substantial as to be misleading’ or ‘if the image is distorted or otherwise changed in a material way.’ What matters, said the court in Crawford, is that the video recording ‘accurately and fairly presents he information that it is to convey.’ Other courts, including this Court, said much the same thing prior to Nikolovski . . .
[32] There is an important distinction between recordings (video or audio) and other forms of real evidence (such as a pistol or an article of clothing found at a crime scene) which supports a test of ‘substantial’ accuracy over the appellants’ preferred test of ‘not altered.’ It will be recalled that ‘authentication’ simply requires that the party tendering evidence establish (to the requisite standard of proof, which we discuss below) the claim(s) made about it. What authentication requires in any given instance therefore depends upon the claim(s) which the tendering party is making about the evidence. In the case of most real evidence, the claim is that the evidence is something – the pistol is a murder weapon, or the article of clothing is the victim’s shirt. Chain of custody, and absence of alteration will be important to establish in such cases. In the case of recordings, however, the claim will typically be not that it is something, but that it accurately represents something (a particular event). What matters with a recording, then, is not whether it was altered, but rather the degree of accuracy of its representation. So long as there is other evidence which satisfies the trier of fact of the requisite degree of accuracy, no evidence regarding the presence or absence of any change or alteration is necessary to sustain a finding of authentication.
[33] Put simply, the mere fact of alteration does not automatically render a video recording inadmissible. It follows that the Crown’s failure to establish that this video recording was not altered should not be fatal, so long as the Crown proves that it is a substantially accurate and fair representation of what it purports to show. All this is, of course, subject to the standard framework for admission, under which a video recording may be excluded on the basis of irrelevance (Penney), where its prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value (R v Veinot, 2011 NSCA 120 (CanLII) at paras 24-27, 311 NSR (2d) 267), or where there is reasonable doubt that the video identifying the accused is a fabrication.”

“Balance of probabilities“

In R v Penney, (2002) 163 CCC (3d) 329, the court considered the ‘falsification of evidence’ and pointed out that the members of a jury ‘can be expected to have, if not experience with, knowledge of the possibilities for manipulating the content of photographs and videotapes’, and concluded that the ‘standard by which the trial judge is to determine the question is on the balance of probabilities’

Bald Denials are Insufficient to Discredit the Authenticity of Video Footage

The Madras High Court, in this decision (State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. V. P. Pandi), also observed as under:

“113. It is true that the cameraman can zoom or minimize an image. It is also true that trick photography is possible. In Suo Motu taken up (PIL) WP Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others (WP 3335 etc. of 2009) decided on 29.10.2009, a Division Bench of this Court (F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla and R. Banumathi, JJ) held that bald denials are insufficient to discredit the authenticity of video footage. In her lead judgment, Banumathi, J (as she then was) has opined as under:
- ‘349. That a bald denial of the contents of a videotape is not adequate to doubt its authenticity; there should be material to show that the video clippings are doctored or morphed’.
The Division Bench proceeded to look into the video tape as a corroborative piece of evidence and held as under:
- ‘350. The respondents have not disputed that the video clippings filed by the petitioners relate to the occurrence. Even though video clippings filed by the petitioners do not have the running time, we have watched the videos and looked into the photos as corroborative piece of evidence’.”

In Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 11 SCC 1, the conclusion of the Speaker on CDs received from TV News channels, that ‘there is no room for doubting the authenticity and accuracy of the electronic evidence produced by the petitioner’, was accepted by the Apex Court holding as under:

“The petitioners despite grant of opportunity had declined to watch the recorded interview. It is one thing to watch the interview, point out in what manner the recording was not genuine but instead of availing of that opportunity, the petitioners preferred to adopt the course of vague denial.”

In Umesh v. State of Karnataka, 2023-2 KarLJ 397, while dealing with a ‘trap case’, after laying down the importance of digital evidence, it is cautioned as under:

“Qualified and trained expert should test the samples. The report should contain the procedure adopted for testing the samples. The equipments used should be duly calibrated and updated periodically. The electronic device should be tested for editing and tampering in order to establish its genuineness and authenticity.
Digital evidence form be created for every memory card/chip used in the trap case containing the unique identification features of the memory chip/card used. The defence should be provided with a cloned copy or a mirror image of the electronic device.”

Distinct Evidentiary Position of a Section 63(4) Certificate

Once the Section 63(4) certificate accompanies the computer output (copy), the computer output becomes admissible in evidence, and it is not mandatory to examine the CCTV operator, or the person who snapped the photograph, for the purpose of its admission.

See: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473,
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.

The Person Who Signed Section 63/65B Certificate Need Not Be Examined: Having regard to the special features of the photographs and videos (that is, visual depictions of facts), even if the Section 63(4) certificate is not that given either by the plaintiff or by the defendant, but by another, the photograph or video can be marked in evidence through the plaintiff or the defendant.

Unless the authenticity or correctness of the certificate issued under Section 63(4) is specifically disputed, oral evidence has no role to play in proving (for the purpose of marking) that the computer output is the exact copy of the (original) electronic record. Therefore, the photographer who issued the certificate under Section 63(4) need not be examined if the correctness of the certificate is not specifically disputed.

In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC, our Apex Court further affirmed as under:

“50. … However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons.”

Presumption on Computer Output (copy) Admitted under Sec. 63

A computer output (copy) of a CCTV footage or video, or of a photograph captured on a mobile phone, can be admitted in evidence in place of the original — if it is produced with a certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA.

Note: Section 63(1), BSA says about admissibility of copy — “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.”

Proof by Certificate under Section 63(4)

In view of the non-obstante clause (“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam”) in Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the only Mode of Proof of a computer output (copy) is the evidence through a certificate under Section 63(4).

Therefore, even in cases where formal proof of the digital photos or videos is dispensed with (for the opposite party admits it), a certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA is necessary.

Admission and Proof of Computer Output (copy): Independent Matters

(i) Admitting a copy of a computer output (such as copy of a statement of accounts) in evidence (with a certificate under Section 63), and (ii) the formal proof thereof at the time of trial, are two distinct and independent matters.

The questions as to substantive proof — whether the computer output or copy is relevant, and how it should be proved — are not determined by Section 63 of the BSA. They are to be established independently, as in the case of any other class of documents.

The burden of Impeaching the Certificate is upon the Party who Disputes it

The presumption arising under Section 63—by which a computer output is deemed to be a document—is rebuttable and does not render the contents of the electronic record conclusive.

If such a challenge on the certificate is overruled by the court, it can draw a presumption as to the genuineness and authenticity of the photographs or videos contained in the computer output (copies).

S. 63 deals with Admissibility of computer output or copy, and not Proof

The questions as to substantive proof — whether the computer output or copy is relevant, and how it should be proved — are not determined by Section 63 of the BSA. They are to be established independently, as in the case of any other class of documents.

However, the court can draw presumptions as to the genuineness and authenticity of such photographs or videos, as stated earlier.

Once Copy Admitted by S. 63 Certificate, Oral Evidence has No Place in Marking

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, is an authority on the following matters –

(i) The certificate under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility of the computer output (copy);
(ii) The certificate is meant to replace the oral evidence of the device-handler or operator.
(iii) Once the certificate is produced, oral evidence has no place (for the purpose of marking it).

However, the person who issued the certificate (operator) has to be examined if:

the authenticity or correctness of the certificate is specifically disputed;
allegations of fabrication, manipulation, or false certification are raised;
the issuer’s control over the device/system is seriously questioned; or
the court needs clarification to assess probative value, not admissibility.

Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witness Theory

Pictorial Testimony Theory — Photograph Need Not Be Proved.
Silent Witness Theory — Photograph Must Be Proved.

Photographer Need Not be examined (In pictorial testimony theory)

When a photograph is admitted merely to aid a witness in explaining his testimony, it need not be proved formally.

Photograph Must Have Been Proved (In silent witness theory)

As stated above, in silent witness theory cases, the photographs must be proved. No doubt, in the peculiar nature of a particular case, the examination of the photographer may not be insisted upon, and the photograph could be proved by another ‘proper’ witness. Formal proof of a photograph may not be necessary where the opposite party admits its genuineness or correctness.

Examination of the Photographer may not be insisted (In silent witness theory)

As stated above, in silent witness theory cases, photographs or videos are required to be proved. However, such proof need not necessarily be by way of formal proof through the examination of the photographer or the person who captured the image. Besides admission of the other side as regards the authenticity, the photographs or videos may instead be proved through a ‘proper’ witness who is competent to depose by way of general evidence regarding the factual features depicted therein, such as the identity of the persons shown, the place, the time, or the surrounding circumstances.

Note: 1. Formal proof of a photograph or copy of a video and the requirement of the certificate under Section 63(4) are two distinct and independent matters.
2. Even in cases where formal proof of the photographs or copies of videos is dispensed with, the certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA (Section 65B of the IEA) is necessary, when a computer output (copy) of a photograph or video is produced — in view of the non-obstante clause in Section 63 of the BSA.
3. A photograph or a copy of video, admitted in evidence on the strength of a certificate under Section 63(4), stands on a distinct footing (in contradistinction to a statement-of-account) by reason of the statutory presumptions that the court can invoke, it being direct visual depictions of facts.
4. The certificate under Section 63(4) is accepted unless its correctness is specifically challenged. The oral evidence of the person who issued the certificate becomes relevant (for the purpose of admitting the document) only where the certificate itself is specifically and successfully challenged by the party who disputes its authenticity or correctness.
5. Therefore, the court is entitled to infer that a photograph or video, once duly admitted in evidence, correctly represents the scene or object as it existed at the time of recording. It is doctrinally recognised as the ‘silent witness’ theory – the document “speaks for itself”.
6. Accordingly, once a photograph or copy of a video is duly admitted in evidence, the court can act upon it (usually as a corroborative piece of evidence), on the basis of general evidence relating to the identity of the persons depicted, the place, the time, and the surrounding circumstances, without insisting upon any further primary or direct proof of the facts.
7. The presumption attached to a photograph or a video admitted in evidence being one rebuttable, the opposite party can rebut it by placing appropriate evidence to show that the photograph or video does not correctly represent the scene, object, or occurrence as it existed at the relevant point of time, or that the factual position had materially changed.

Pictorial Testimony Theory: No Enacted Law; Only Judicial Exposition

The pictorial testimony theory rests on judicial exposition rather than statutory codification. It finds only indirect support, in principle, from Section 162 (Refreshing Memory), BSA. Section 162 is to be understood as one not exhaustive in its operation.

Section 162 of the BSA reads as under:

“Refreshing memory: (1) A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory:
- Provided that the witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it, he knew it to be correct.
(2) Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:
- Provided that the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original:
- Provided further that an expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.”

Definition of Evidence

According to the Section 2(1)(e) of the Bh. Sak. Act –

” ‘evidence’ means and includes–

(i) all statements including statements given electronically which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and such statements are called oral evidence;

(ii) all documents including electronic or digital records produced for the inspection of the Court and such documents are called documentary evidence.”

Connected Articles:

Definition of document

Section 2(1)(d) of the Bh. Sak. Act defines ‘document’ as under:

“ (d) ‘document’ means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records.

Illustrations.
(i) A writing is a document.

(ii) Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents.

(iii) A map or plan is a document.

(iv) An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document.

(v) A caricature is a document.

(vi) An electronic record on emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptop or smartphone, messages, websites, locational evidence and voice mail messages stored on digital devices are documents.”

‘Document’ takes in photographs of words as could be seen from the illustration.

By virtue of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (computer output) shall be ‘deemed to be also a document’.

Besides the Evidence Act, the term ‘document’ has been defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 3(18), General Clauses Act defines document as under:

“Document shall include any matter written, expressed, or described upon any substances by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means which is intended to be used, or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter.”

Section 29, Indian Penal Code explains that the word document denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.

In Explanation 1, it is stated:

“It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in a court of justice, or not.”

Going by the definitions, ‘document ‘ includes not only all materials or substances upon which thoughts of a man are represented by writing or any other species of conventional mark or symbol, but also records of information of some sort (Santhosh Madhavan @ Swami Amritha Chaithanya v. State, 2014 KerHC 31).

In P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, AIR 2020 SC 1, it is observed that tape records of speeches (Also in: Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, 2010-4 SCC 329; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17 ) and audio/video cassettes (See: Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra, 1976-2 SCC 17) including compact disc (See also: Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, 2016-15 SCC 485) were “documents” under Section 3 of the 1872 Act, which stand on no different footing than photographs and were held admissible in evidence. It is by now well established that the electronic record produced for the inspection of the Court is documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act (Anwar PV v. PK Basheer, 2014-10 SCC 473).

Yusaf Ali lsmail Nagri v. The State of Maharashtra, 1967- 3 S.C.R. 720

“The process of tape-recording offers an accurate method of storing and later reproducing sounds. The imprint on the magnetic tape is the direct effect of the relevant sounds. Like a photograph of a relevant incident, a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under s. 7 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

R.M Malkani v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1973 SC 157

In R.M Malkani v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1973 SC 157, summarised this case (Yusaf Ali lsmail Nagri) as under:

“In Nagree’s case (Yusaf Ali lsmail Nagri v. The State of Maharashtra, 1967- 3 S.C.R. 720) the appellant offered bribe to Sheikh a Municipal Clerk. Sheikh informed the Police. The Police laid a trap. Sheikh called Nagree at the residence. The Police kept a tape recorder concealed in another room. The tape was kept in the custody of the police inspector Sheikh gave evidence of the talk. The tape record corroborated his testimony, as a photograph taken without the knowledge of the person photographed can become relevant and admissible so does a tape record of a conversation unnoticed by the talkers. A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae. It is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident. The tape recorded conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Evidence Act.”

After summarising Nagree’s case (Yusaf Ali lsmail Nagri v. The State of Maharashtra, 1967- 3 S.C.R. 720), the Supreme Court said as under:

“The Court will take care in two directions in admitting such evidence. First, the Court will find out that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. Secondly, the Court may also secures scrupulous conduct and behaviour on behalf of the Police. The reason is that the Police Officer is more likely to behave properly if improperly obtained evidence is liable to be viewed with care and caution by the Judge. In every case the position of the accused, the nature of the investigation and the gravity of the offence must be judged in the light of the material facts and the Surrounding circumstances.”

K. K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011-11 SCC 275:

7. The amended definition of “evidence” in section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 read with the definition of “electronic record” in section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act 2000, includes a compact disc containing an electronic record of a conversation. Section 8 of Evidence Act provides that the conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit, in reference to such suit, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. In R.M Malkani v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1973 SC 157, this court made it clear that electronically recorded conversation is admissible in evidence, if the conversation is relevant to the matter in issue and the voice is identified and the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasure, addition or manipulation. This Court further held that a contemporaneous electronic recording of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident and is admissible as evidence under Section 8 of the Act. There is therefore no doubt that such electronic record can be received as evidence.”

The Kerala High Court (KT Thomas, J.), in Ponnappan v. State of Kerala, ILR 1994(3) Ker 370, in appeal, confirmed the conviction holding that Chacko was the person who was killed. It was on a photo identification – Pictorial testimony. The Court held as under:

“PW I identified the person in M.O.9 photo as the person who was killed. There is no doubt that M.O.9 is the photograph of Chacko, the film representative. It was contended that since P. W.I himself admitted that he had not observed the features or facial peculiarities of the person when he was inside the car, the identification made by him with the help of the photo is not of any use. We are of the view that even without noticing any translatable mark or feature of a person it would be possible to identify him later.”

Here the photo had not been proved through the photographer.

End Notes:

State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. V. P. Pandi @ Attack Pandi, 2019-2 CTC 391; 2019-3 CTC 391; 2019-2 MLJ(Cri) 129, the Madras High Court held as under:

“115. We may also incidentally notice the developments in the law on video and photographic evidence in the West where the “silent witness” theory is deployed to admit video and photographic evidence. The theory proceeds on the footing that photographic and video evidence are “silent witnesses” which speak for themselves. They are substantive evidence of what they portray. Two examples may be noticed.
(a) State of Nevada v. Archanian, [145 P 3d 1008 (2006)] was a murder case before the Supreme Court of Nevada, where, a key piece of evidence was the digital video recorded by the store’s surveillance system. The accused attacked the authenticity of the video footage on the ground that the VHS tape given to the police video technician was not the original and that the technician had isolated the relevant camera view and highlighted certain portions of the video. It was this composite videotape that was shown to the jury. In the trial, the prosecution acknowledged that they had no way of knowing whether the images were accurately transferred from the original digital recording to the VHS version but testified that they appeared to be the same. The Supreme Court of Nevada admitted the video evidence under the silent witness theory and held as under:
- “There is no evidence suggesting that the composite videotape was inaccurate, that any relevant or exculpatory information had been deleted from it, or that the modifications made to it adversely affected or obscured the content.”
(b) More recently, in Her Majesty v. Jaiyhi He, [2017 ONCJ 790] Kenkel, J. of the Ontario Court of Justice in Canada formulated a test, very similar to our own and that has been alluded to by us in para 105 (supra). The Court opined:
- “The party seeking to tender a video in evidence must show two things to meet the threshold test of admissibility:
- They must prove the video is relevant, showing the crime scene or other evidence linked to the issues at trial.
- They must prove the video is authentic – that it accurately represents the events depicted.”
Referring to the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Bulldog (2015 ABCA 251), the Ontario Court said:
- “Circumstantial evidence may be used to authenticate real evidence – Bulldog at para 35. There is no particular evidence or class of witness that must be called to authenticate a video provided the whole of the evidence establishes that the video in question is substantially accurate and a fair depiction.”
The Ontario Court has held that in a given case, whether the two part test (supra) is satisfied or not, would have to be decided on a balance of probabilities. The Court found that the testimony of the police officer was in sync with the narrative contained in the video, thereby establishing its authenticity on a balance of probabilities. The Ontario Court further observed:
- “7. While the circumstantial evidence is sufficient, in this case, there is further direct evidence that independently shows the video is accurate. The surveillance video is in sync with all of the other evidence at trial. The officers’ testimony as to the scene when they arrived, the times the various officers arrived, their actions, the position of the accused, the departure of other parties, the arrival of the ambulance is all consistent with this video. The two police in-car videos are also consistent with this surveillance video.”
We have referred to these decisions in order to reiterate that a pragmatic and purposive interpretation of the law governing the admission of electronic evidence is consistent with the development of the law in international jurisdictions as well.
116. We, therefore, unhesitatingly hold that the photos and videos in M.Os.45,49,50,51,52 and 53 were taken contemporaneously when the attack was taking place and have not been doctored and can be read in evidence.”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession:

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in cognizable offences

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

General Principles
Dedication and Vesting
Trustees and Management
Breach of Trust
- Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
Suits by or against Trusts
Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
Constitutional Principles
Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
General

2 Comments

EBIN XAVIER says:

October 9, 2025 at 1:01 pm

Sir , Please confirm whether, under the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice, a party to a pending civil case—even when represented by an advocate—may personally inspect the entire case record on filing a simple Rule 112 memorandum with the court office (without a judicial order or IA), with the inspection to be supervised under Rule 116; and clarify in what situations, if any, Rule 114 requires the matter to be placed before the Judge (notice/IA), plus whether such a Rule 112 memo can be physically filed as an ‘other memo’ (e-filing optional).”

LikeLike

blissful1518c1cd8d says:

October 13, 2025 at 7:57 pm

sir I need authority to add plaintiff under 1 rule 10(1) cpc

LikeLike

Admissibility of Photographs, and Photo-Identification, in Court Cases

Adv. Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Published by sajikoduvath

2 Comments

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Adv. Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Share this:

Related

Published by sajikoduvath

2 Comments

Leave a Comment Cancel reply