Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Proof of a video saved in a pen drive generally involves establishing its authenticity, integrity, and admissibility in court. Key methods include presenting a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which attests to the electronic evidence's credibility ["Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"], ["Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"], ["Ummineni Ramesh vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Shankar Kumar Singh, son of Late Gajendra Prasad Singh vs State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"].
The transfer process of videos onto pen drives often involves copying from mobile phones, CCTV DVRs, or other electronic devices. The origin and chain of custody are crucial; for example, a pen drive containing a video transferred from a mobile or CCTV footage must be properly documented and supported by certificates or expert testimony to establish authenticity ["S.G.Surya vs State through The Inspector of Police, CCD-III, Madurai City. - Madras"], ["State of Jharkhand VS Ramai Karua - Jharkhand"], ["Shankar Kumar Singh, son of Late Gajendra Prasad Singh vs State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"].
Courts emphasize the necessity of producing the original or a certified copy of the electronic evidence, along with a certificate under Section 65-B, to avoid questions of tampering or fabrication. In some cases, failure to produce the original or an appropriate certificate leads to the evidence being inadmissible or unreliable ["SRIMUSHANAN V.RAJARAO vs THE PRESIDENT, The Music Academy, Madras and 2 others - Madras"], ["Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"], ["Harkesh Meena Son of Ramsahay Meena vs State Of Rajasthan, through C.B.I represented By Special PP. - Rajasthan"].
When a pen drive is produced as evidence, its sealing, proper handling, and certification are vital to prove that the contents have not been altered. Authentication certificates, signatures from responsible officials, and expert analysis are often used to confirm the integrity of the data ["State of Jharkhand VS Ravindra Kumar Ravikar, s/o Sri Nathuni Yadav - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 394"], ["Ravi Kumar Mahto @ Ravi Kant Mahto VS State of Bihar - Patna"], ["EXHIBIT-P-36/PW-15"].
Courts also consider the context of the evidence, such as whether it was confronted during cross-examination, whether proper procedures for disclosure were followed, and if the evidence was properly marked and admitted, to determine its probative value ["Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"], ["Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Proving a video saved in a pen drive involves establishing its authenticity through proper documentation, certificates under Section 65-B, and adherence to chain of custody protocols. Courts require that electronic evidence be properly handled, certified, and presented to ensure its credibility and prevent fabrication. The process includes verifying the source, ensuring the integrity of the data, and following legal procedures for admissibility. Proper certification and expert testimony are critical to substantiate the video’s genuineness in court proceedings ["Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"], ["State of Jharkhand VS Ramai Karua - Jharkhand"].
In today's digital age, videos captured on smartphones or cameras are often stored on pen drives and presented as crucial evidence in legal proceedings. But simply plugging in a pen drive doesn't make the video admissible. Courts demand strict proof of authenticity, integrity, and proper handling. If you're wondering how to prove a video saved in a pen drive, this guide breaks down the legal requirements under Indian law, drawing from key judicial precedents.
Whether you're involved in a criminal trial, civil dispute, or family matter, understanding these steps can make or break your case. Note: This is general information based on established legal principles and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Electronic records, including videos on pen drives, are treated as documents under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This section allows such records to be admissible without producing the original, provided certain conditions are met.
As clarified in judicial rulings: Section 65B of the Evidence Act made it clear that, 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 shall also be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in that 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 P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep VS State of Kerala - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 538.
Pen drives qualify as optical or magnetic media, but admissibility hinges on proving no tampering has occurred XXXX VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 888.
Courts typically require the original pen drive or a certified true copy of its contents. Failure to produce either can render the evidence unreliable.
In one case, the prosecution's evidence was questioned due to not presenting the original pen drive or certified copy Muhammed Ramees VS State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1004. Similarly, for audio (analogous to video), admissibility depends on voice identity, no tampering, and medium reliability—presupposing original or certified presentation Venu Gopalakrishnan, S/o Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2841.
From additional precedents:- A petitioner sought to mark a pen drive containing arrest video footage transferred from a computer, emphasizing it as necessary proof Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police - 2020 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6790.- Courts have allowed pen drives during COVID-19 protocols, even if online links expired, but reserved rights to challenge evidentiary value later Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc VS Designarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Del) 4409.
Key Tip: Always submit the physical pen drive sealed and labeled.
The chain of custody is paramount—document every step from creation to court presentation to rule out tampering.
Requirements include:- Lawful seizure and secure preservation.- No evidence of manipulation.- Forensic verification if disputed.
The Supreme Court stressed examining memory cards/pen drives for unauthorized access during custody XXXX VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 888. In a POCSO case, a pen drive recording was exhibited but objected to due to non-production to police and potential tampering concerns Ravi Kumar Mahto @ Ravi Kant Mahto VS State of Bihar.
Another instance: Video-graphed incidents preserved on CD/pen drive were deemed vital if witness testimony holds, but required proper custody Mashetty Ganesh vs The State of Telangana and another - 2023 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 636.
Checklist for Chain of Custody:- Timestamped logs of handling.- Seals on the device.- Witness statements on transfer (e.g., from phone to pen drive) Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police.
If the original isn't produced, a Section 65B certificate is essential. It certifies the document as a true copy from the electronic record, detailing the device, manner of production, and responsible person.
Absence of this led to visuals from a pen drive being disregarded Shamsudheen @ Bapputty, S/o. Ummer VS State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 202. In a bail matter, the certificate omitted reference to the pen drive, questioning its preparation from WhatsApp upload Arshad VS State Of Haryana - 2020 Supreme(P&H) 1495. Courts have denied surprise video introductions in cross-examination without prior disclosure and certification Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Kristan Auto - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 2226.
Sample Certificate Elements:1. Identification of the electronic record.2. Manner of production.3. Signature of the person in charge.4. Date and device details.
Inspections must prevent alterations:- Conducted with authorized personnel only.- No unauthorized copying devices allowed Muhammed Ramees VS State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1004.- Full documentation.
In a video clip case for recalling witnesses, the pen drive/mobile was exhibited, but re-examination was permitted to clarify contents Amarjeet @ Kaluwa VS State of U. P. - 2020 Supreme(All) 729. Courts have ordered pen drives sealed post-inspection Court On Its Own Motion VS Chandigarh Administration - 2020 Supreme(P&H) 239. Forgery claims require expert opinion on source and recording device LINEESH vs RANCY - 2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22393.
These illustrate courts' caution: Electronic evidence is powerful but fragile.
Exceptions:- No original/certificate? Inadmissible or low weight.- Tampering proof? Invalidated.- Expert testimony often required.
Recommendations:- Produce original or get 65B certificate immediately.- Document custody rigorously.- Hire forensic experts for hash verification.- Comply with inspection rules to avoid disputes.
To successfully prove a video on a pen drive:1. Produce original or certified copyMuhammed Ramees VS State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1004.2. Secure chain of custodyXXXX VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 888.3. Attach Section 65B certificateShamsudheen @ Bapputty, S/o. Ummer VS State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 202.4. Follow inspection protocolsMuhammed Ramees VS State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1004.5. Verify integrity via forensics.
Proving a video saved in a pen drive demands meticulous adherence to Section 65B and custody protocols. While technology evolves, courts prioritize tamper-proof processes to uphold justice. Stay proactive—proper preparation turns digital files into compelling evidence. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal professional.
References:1. Shamsudheen @ Bapputty, S/o. Ummer VS State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 202 - CCTV visuals and certificates.2. Muhammed Ramees VS State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1004 - Inspection and handling.3. XXXX VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 888 - Custody protection.4. P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep VS State of Kerala - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 538 - Section 65B context.5. Venu Gopalakrishnan, S/o Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2841 - Authenticity factors.6. Additional cases: Ulaganathan vs The Inspector of Police - 2020 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6790, Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc VS Designarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Del) 4409, Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Kristan Auto - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 2226, etc.
#PenDriveEvidence, #Section65B, #ElectronicEvidence
clippings which were saved in a Pen Drive. ... clippings downloaded and saved in a Pen Drive, cannot be permitted since by virtue of this, the applicant is trying to in this regard, the learned counsel referred to paragraph 20 ... the learned counsel for the applicant, since already sufficient pleadings have decide about the truthfulness and reliability of the documents and it is for the applicant to prove
The petitioner stated that his arrest was video-graphed by one Karpaga Gnaniyar and he transferred the video into a pen drive and now, he wanted to prove his case and prayed the court to permit him to mark the pen drive. ... coverage and saved in the computer and after that, he handed over the same to the petitioner in the form of pen drive and hence, it is a necessary proof on the side of the petitioner to #HL_STA....
prove his case and prayed the court to permit him to mark the pen drive. ... was transferred in the form of pen drive and the said Karpaga Gnaniyar gave pen drive to the petitioner/A2 and he transferred the video into a pen drive and now, he wanted to drive.
in the form of a pen drive. ... The plaintiff merely seeks to place, on record, the said link, by way of a pen drive. ... I do not see why the Court should refuse the request of the plaintiff to take the aforesaid pen drive on record. ... This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to take on record a pen drive, containing the #HL_STAR....
In the present case even no application was filed by the petitioner for producing the pen drive. The petitioner cannot be permitted to just pull the pen drive out of his pocket and confront the respondent with the same during his cross-examination. ... It is submitted that in case the petitioners had not confronted the respondent with the video recording during his cross-examination, the element of surprise which was the intent behind the pen drive would have been los....
No. 25 of 2025, was filed seeking permission to submit pen drives containing the video and to play the same before the Court for the witness's observation. ... b) The revision petitioners/accused shall be permitted to confront the witness during cross-examination with the contents of the videographic material contained in the pen drive. ... In the present case, the petitioners have produced a pen drive accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B, purportedly issued by the competen....
In her cross-examination, she has stated that the pen drive containing the recording was produced belonged to her and recording was done by her brother Deepak at the house itself. The recording on the pen drive was done two years ago. Pen drive was not handed over to the police. ... The said pen drive is, though exhibited, the objection was taken by the defence and it is specifically alleged that the pen drive has ....
In her cross-examination, she has stated that the pen drive containing the recording was produced belonged to her and recording was done by her brother Deepak at the house itself. The recording on the pen drive was done two years ago. Pen drive was not handed over to the police. ... The said pen drive is, though exhibited, the objection was taken by the defence and it is specifically alleged that the pen drive has ....
The PW.3 has also deposed that he had video-graphed the incident and preserved it in the form of a C.D. and pen drive. ... If the statement of PW.3 is to be taken as correct, the evidence which was recorded in the C.D. and pen drive are very vital to prove the charge levelled against the revision petitioner. ... Drive alleging that on the ground that PW.3 has video-graphed the incident and recorded the same in a C.D. and pen #HL_STA....
video uploaded in internet, which revealed the sexual intercourse between the respondent and another man and the same was produced before the court in pen-drive and the same is in the safe custody of the court. ... The pen-drive produced is a forged one and the same will be revealed only if it is sent for expert's opinion. The source of getting the video is not revealed in the affidavit. It is also not revealed as to how the same was recorded and as to what object was used to record ....
It is stated that the material collected during the course of investigation is exchange of communication by deceased, certain documents referred to in the FIR in respect of certain Court proceedings or quasi judicial proceedings, a self video prepared by the deceased, etc. It is stated that by drawing necessary panchnama the documents were collected and the video clips were also stored in a pen drive by drawing necessary panchnama. Then reference is made to certain statements recorded by the investigating officer.
In the certificate issued under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act, there is no reference of Pen Drive. Preparation of Pen Drive would be the result of uploading the video from whatsapp on computer and then in the Pen Drive.
As per the applicant, in this video clip, the injured Nitin was disclosing the names of the accused persons involved in the offence. The pen drive and mobile phone containing the video clip was exhibited by the trial court. The applicant on the same day i.e. 10.1.2020 moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the witness PW-5 Nitin (injured) for his re-examination on the question of said video clip.
He admitted that the police had taken the video recording in a pen drive.
The registry shall supply copy of the report to other stake holders as well, whosoever apply for it. The Court commissioner has handed over a video recording as Annexure C-3 (Pen Drive) alongwith the report. We record our appreciation for the work done by the Court Commissioner, Shri Vikas Suri, Advocate. The Pen Drive be kept in a sealed cover alongwith the file.
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
