Law on Electronic Evidence in India: A Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Indian Law in a Nutshell

• Electronic evidence cannot be ignored on any technicality.

In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2018 SC 714; 2018-2 SCC 801, our Supreme Court, stated as under:

• “21. ….. Reliability of the piece of evidence is certainly a matter to be determined in the facts and circumstances of a fact situation. However, threshold admissibility of an electronic evidence cannot be ruled out on any technicality if the same was relevant”. (Quoted in: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1)

Proof on Video – UK, US and Canada 

The following are the well-accepted UK authorities on proof of electronic evidence.

• (i) R. v. Maqsud Ali [1966] 1 QB 688) – on tape recordings,
• (ii) R v. Clare and Peach (1995] 2 Cr App R 333) – on photograph,
• (iii) R v. Atkins [2009] EWCA Crim 1876 – on CCTV.

The following is the important US authority on proof of videos.

• State of Nevada v. Archanian, 145 P 3d 1008 (2006) – Supreme Court of Nevada (a U.S. state)

The following are the well-accepted Canadian authorities on proof of videos.

• (i)  R. v. Bulldog, 2015 ABCA 251 – Alberta Court of Appeal(Western Canada).( It is followed in  Her Majesty v. Jaiyhi He, 2017 ONCJ 790 –  Ontario Court of Justice in Canada)
•  (ii) Her Majesty v. Jaiyhi He, 2017 ONCJ 790 –  Ontario Court of Justice in Canada.

These decisions consistently laid down the following as to the admissibility of a video in evidence:

• (a) The video must be relevant to the issues at trial.
• (b) The video must be authentic – that it accurately represents the events depicted.

Madras High Court Relied on the above Canada Decisions

While considering the developments in the law on video and photographic evidence, the Madras High Court, in 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, relied on the aforesaid decisions –

• (a) State of Nevada v. Archanian, 145 P 3d 1008 (2006);
• (b) Her Majesty v. Jaiyhi He, 2017 ONCJ 790.

 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.”

Halsbury’s Laws of England

In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, 2006 reissue, Vol. 11(3) Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure, it is stated while dealing with “Documentary and Real Evidence”, as under:

• “1471. Audio and video recordings. – An audio recording is admissible in evidence provided that the accuracy of the recording can be proved, the recorded voices can be properly identified, and the evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible [R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 All ER 464, R v. Ashiq Hussain [1966] 1 QB 688, 49 Cr. App. Rep 230, CCA. For the considerations relevant to the determination of admissibility see R. v. Stevenson, R. v. Hulse, R. v. Whitney [1971] 1 All ER 678, 55 Cr. App. Rep 171; R. v. Robson, R. v. Harris [1972] 2 All ER 699, 56 Cr.App. Rep 450. See also R. v. Senat, R. v. Sin (1968) 52 Cr. App. Rep 282, CA; R. v. Bailey [1993] 3 All ER 513, 97 Cr. App. Rep 365, CA. Where a video recording of an incident becomes available after the witness has made a statement, the witness may view the video and, if necessary, amend his statement so long as the procedure adopted is fair and the witness does not rehearse his evidence: R. v. Roberts (Michael), R. v. Roberts (Jason) [1998] Crim. LR 682, 162 JP 691, CA.]. However, that evidence should always be regarded with caution and assessed in the light of all the circumstances [R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 All ER 464, R. v. Ashiq Hussain [1966] 1 QB 688, 49 Cr.App. Rep 230, CCA. As to the use of tape recordings and transcripts see R. v. Rampling [1987] Crim. LR 823, CA; and see also Buteria v. DPP (1986) 76 ALR 45, Aust. HC. As to the tape recording of police interviews see para 971 et seq ante; and as to the exclusion of a tape recording under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 s. 78 (as amended) (see para 1365 ante) as unfair evidence see R. v. H [1987] Crim. LR 47, Cf R. v. Jelen, R. v. Karz (1989) 90 Cr. App. Rep 456, CA (tape recording admitted despite element of entrapment).].
• A video recording of an incident which is in issue is admissible [Taylor v. Chief Constable of Cheshire [1987] 1 All ER 225, 84 Cr.App. Rep 191, DC.]. There is no difference in terms of admissibility between a direct view of an incident and a view of it on a visual display unit of a camera or on a recording of what the camera has filmed. A witness who sees an incident on a display or a recording may give evidence of what he saw in the same way as a witness who had a direct view [Taylor v. Chief Constable of Cheshire [1987] 1 All ER 225, 84 Cr.App. Rep 191, DC. As to the admissibility of video recordings as evidence identifying the defendant see also R. v. Fowden and White [1982] Crim. LR 588, CA; R. v. Grimer [1982] Crim. LR 674, CA; R. v. Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr.App. Rep 7, CA. A recording showing a road on which an incident had occurred was admitted in R. v. Thomas [1986] Crim. LR 682. As to the identification of the defendant by still photographs taken by an automatic security camera see R. v. Dodson, R. v. Williams [1984] 1 WLR 971, 79 Cr.App. Rep 220, CA; as to identification generally see para 1455 ante; and as to the admissibility of a copy of a video recording of an incident see Kajala v. Noble (1982) 75 Cr.App. Rep 149, CA.].” (Quoted in: P.  Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala, AIR 2020 SC 1; 2020-9 SCC 161)

R. v. Maqsud Ali

R v. Maqsud Ali, (Court of Appeal, England and Wales, Criminal Division [1966] 1 QB 688), considered the admissibility of secret tape recordings. It is a foundational case on audio recordings. It was cautioned that such evidence should be relevant and reliable, and also be a legitimate exhibit.

R v. Clare and Peach

R v. Clare and Peach (Court of Appeal, England and Wales, Criminal Division [1995] 2 Cr App R 333)  is an authority concerning the admissibility of photographic identification evidence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (UK). It is held that the production of photographs to witnesses amounts to a “recognition” rather than a “formal identification” procedure.

R v. Atkins

R v. Atkins, [2009] EWCA Crim 1876, of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ), England and Wales, is a modern locus classicus on the visual evidence (CCTV) and identification testimony and expert opinion in criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeal held that expert evidence, in cases involving CCTV footage and photographic comparisons, could be admissible when it assisted the jury beyond their ordinary experience. However, the Court emphasized that such evidence must be based on a demonstrably reliable methodology.

R. v. Bulldog, 2015 ABCA 251

This decision of the Alberta (Western Canada) Court of Appeal is the leading authority on the following:

• (i) A video can be proved by any one of the following –
  • (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.
• (ii) What is required is the proof as to authenticity of the video; and not the evidence that the video is ‘not altered’.

Two questions came for consideration in this case. They were –

• .1. “Can a digital video only be authenticated by an eyewitness”?
• 2. Should there be proof – video was not altered or changed?

Both questions were answered negatively in R. v. Bulldog.

“Can a digital video only be authenticated by an eyewitness”?

One of the main questions in R. v. Bulldog, 2015 ABCA 251, was whether a digital video can only be authenticated by an eyewitness.

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: the camera operator; an eye-witness present when the video is taken who can testify that the video accurately represents what he or she saw; a person qualified to state that the representation is accurate; or 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?

Another main question in R. v. Bulldog, 2015 ABCA 251, was whether a digital video can only be authenticated by an eyewitness. The appellants argued that R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 S.C.R. mandated a two-fold test: that is  –

• .(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 (R. v. Bulldog, 2015 ABCA 251) disagreed with the appellant finding, in a nutshell, as under:

• 1. When accuracy of the video is satisfied, evidence regarding the absence of alteration was not 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 if it is proved that the DVD was a substantially accurate and fair representation of what it purported to show.

The Alberta Court of Appeal (R. v. Bulldog, 2015 ABCA 251) 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.”

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

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, KENKEL J., said:

• “Introduction
• [1] Constable Sebastian found a white Mercedes stopped in the roadway and a man lying unconscious on the grass nearby. Mr. He was subsequently charged with having care or control of a vehicle while his ability to operate that vehicle was impaired by consumption of alcohol. The next day, another officer went to a business near the scene of the incident and saw two surveillance cameras that could have captured the events on video. He spoke with a manager who had access to the surveillance video system, watched the videos from those cameras and found that one captured this incident. The manager copied the video from their system to a DVD the officer had brought for that purpose. At issue is whether the Crown has proved the surveillance video admissible where no person from the business was called to authenticate the copy.
• Surveillance Video Authentication
• [2] 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.
  • The test is satisfied on a balance of probabilities – R v Bulldog 2015 ABCA 251 at paras 39-40.[1]
• [3] The defence refers to a statement in R v Nikolovski, [1996] SCJ No 122 at para 28 as setting the test for authentication, “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.” The defence submits that while there is eye witness evidence that can authenticate a portion of this video, there is no witness who can identify the initial events so there’s no evidence that portion of the video is an accurate representation. Second, the Crown has failed to prove that the video has not been altered or changed. The Crown has not called anyone from the company that kept the surveillance system so the video has not been authenticated and should not be admitted.
• [4] The argument that Nikolovski sets out a two-step test for video authentication was rejected by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R v Bulldog supra. The court noted that Nikolovski was not a case about video admissibility as that had been conceded at trial.[2] They found that the passage cited above does not state a test or necessary condition for authentication, but rather a sufficient condition – Bulldog at para 28. What matters with video evidence is the degree of accuracy of its representation. So long as there is other evidence which shows the video is accurate, no evidence regarding the absence of any change or alteration is necessary – Bulldog at para 32.
• [5] Constable Lewis went back to the scene during business hours the day after the accused’s arrest. He spoke to the people at the company and was referred to a manager who had access to the surveillance video equipment. Constable Lewis saw the video recording system, he viewed the surveillance video at the relevant time and found that it showed this incident. He watched the manager make a digital copy directly onto a DVD that the officer had brought for that purpose.
•  [6] 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[3] and a fair depiction – Bulldog at para 37.
• The surveillance system described by the officer operates automatically. The copying of a digital record as described by the officer is a simple and now familiar procedure. A side by side comparison of the two videos is not necessary to prove the reliability of the copy in that context. There’s nothing in the evidence that casts doubt on the integrity of this record. I find the circumstances described by the officer and his direct observations establish the integrity and accuracy of the video on the balance of probabilities. The testimony of a company representative to confirm the officer’s observations about the video system and the fact that a direct digital copy was made would add little to the officer’s evidence. The absence of a company witness does not render the video inadmissible.
• “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.
• [8] On this point, the defence submits that the evidence of the officers and the police in-car videos may confirm the accuracy of the surveillance video after they arrived, but it cannot confirm the accuracy of the video prior to that time. I disagree. The fact that every part of the video that could be confirmed by independent evidence is consistent with that evidence is a circumstance which strongly supports the accuracy of the entire video including those minutes before the police arrived. I find the surveillance video is also admissible on that basis.”

Quoting the para 6 and 7 above, the Madras High Court, in 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), said as under:

• “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.”

 “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’

Admissibility of the Electronic Evidence is Subject to Safeguards

In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2018 SC 714; 2018-2 SCC 801, our Supreme Court, stated as under:

• “21. We have been taken through certain decisions which may be referred to. In Ram Singh vs. Ram Singh [Ram Singh vs. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611] , a three-Judge Bench considered the said issue. English judgments in R. v. Maqsud Ali [R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1966) 1 QB 688] and R. v. Robson [R. vs. Robson, (1972) 1 WLR 651] and American Law as noted in American Jurisprudence 2d (Vol. 29) p. 494, were cited with approval to the effect that it will be wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques and new devices, provided the accuracy of the recording can be proved. Such evidence should always be regarded with some caution and assessed in the light of all the circumstances of each case. Electronic evidence was held to be admissible, subject to safeguards adopted by the Court about the authenticity of the same. In the case of tape-recording, it was observed that voice of the speaker must be duly identified, accuracy of the statement was required to be proved by the maker of the record, possibility of tampering was required to be ruled out. …..”

Conclusion

The following are the distinctive features of Indian law that significantly relax the strict burden of proof governing electronic evidence:

• (i) Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 stipulates that a computer output (i.e., a copy of an electronic record) is ordinarily admissible upon the production of the prescribed certificate, thereby facilitating the mode of proof of secondary electronic evidence; and
• (ii) Section 119 of the Adhiniyam enables the Court to presume the accuracy of electronic records, including photographs and video recordings, with the result that the evidential burden shifts to the opposing party to rebut such presumption by placing cogent material on record.

In contrast, UK law adopts a more common law–driven and cautionary approach. While electronic and video evidence is readily admissible upon proof of relevance and authenticity, the courts have consistently emphasised the risks inherent in visual identification, particularly from CCTV footage. The leading authority in this regard is R v Atkins. It emphasises careful judicial scrutiny, especially where the quality of the images is poor or where identification rests on inference.

Thus, Indian law tends to ease the evidentiary burden at the threshold of admissibility. The UK law places comparatively greater emphasis on rigorous scrutiny at the stage of evaluation and weight, particularly in cases involving identification from video recordings

A similar facilitative approach is discernible in Canadian law. Both the Canada Evidence Act and the Ontario Evidence Act recognise a presumption as to the “integrity of an electronic documents system”, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In this respect, Indian law aligns more closely with the Canadian model, in that it employs statutory presumptions to ease the evidentiary burden, rather than relying predominantly on case-by-case judicial calibration (as it prevails in the UK).