Back
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
The specified conditions for the accused regarding access to the contents of the memory card/pen-drive (treated as an electronic record and document under relevant laws) are as follows:
Inspection in Court: The accused, or their lawyer, may request the Magistrate for permission to inspect the contents in court, potentially multiple times if necessary, accompanied by their lawyer and/or an authorized I.T. expert, to prepare an effective defense during trial. The Magistrate must consider such requests judiciously and objectively, ensuring they are not used to protract the trial. [1000643100042] (!) [Findings of Court]
Restrictions During Inspection: While permitting inspection, strict safeguards must be enforced—no devices, especially electronic ones like mobile phones capable of copying, transferring, or altering the electronic record, may be carried by the accused, lawyer, or I.T. expert. [1000643100042] (!) [Findings of Court]
No Direct Cloned Copy in Privacy-Sensitive Cases: Ordinarily, a cloned copy should be provided if relied upon by prosecution, but in cases involving victim/witness privacy or identity (e.g., rape-related offenses), the court may limit access to inspection only, balancing fair trial rights under Article 21 with victim privacy. Courts must issue directions to protect both sides' interests. [1000643100043][1000643100041][1000643100031][judgement_subject (A)][judgement_subject (B)]
Independent Forensic Opinion: The accused may seek a second expert opinion (e.g., from Central Forensic Science Laboratory or similar independent agency) on the contents' genuineness and credibility. Queries can be formulated with their own expert; the process and report remain confidential until trial conclusion, inaccessible to others except the accused or authorized representative. This reassures the accused without direct possession. [1000643100036][1000643100037][1000643100044]
These measures ensure compliance with Section 207 CrPC (supply of documents) while preventing misuse, upholding fair trial rights. The trial court must facilitate expeditious resolution. [1000643100045][1000643100046][IMPORTANT POINTS (1)][IMPORTANT POINTS (2)]
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The conundrum in this appeal is: whether the contents of a memory card/pen-drive being electronic record as predicated in Section 2(1)(t) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the 2000 Act’) would, thereby qualify as a “document” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the 1872 Act’) and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the 1860 Code’)? If so, whether it is obligatory to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of such memory card/pen-drive to the accused facing prosecution for an alleged offence of rape and related offences since the same is appended to the police report submitted to the Magistrate and the prosecution proposes to rely upon it against the accused, in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the 1973 Code’)? The next question is: whether it is open to the Court to decline the request of the accused to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of the subject memory card/pen-drive in the form of video footage/clipping concerning the alleged incident/occurrence of rape on the ground that it would impinge upon the priv
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
