Accused Has Right To View Digital Documents That Are Part Of Prosecution Records Without Affecting Victim's Privacy: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the accused cannot be denied the right to view the pen drive containing CCTV visuals which are part of prosecution records for defending his case, as part of his right to a fair trial.

“The right of the accused to defend a case is a salutary right and therefore the accused has a right of access to the documents including digital documents (excluding the same contains privacy of the victim as held in Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala [AIR 1996 SC 1393]). Thus, such a right could not be denied and such denial is not fair trial.”

The revision petitioner was accused of allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 447 (punishment for criminal trespass) and 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage woman's modesty) of the IPC and sexual assault and sexual harassment under the POCSO Act.

The petitioner submitted the application for viewing the pen drive containing CCTV visuals obtained from the house of the accused which was submitted before the Fast Track Special Court.

The Special Court dismissed the application of the petitioner stating that the pen drive does not have CCTV visuals and that the courtyard of the house was out of coverage of the CCTV camera.

The petitioner filed the criminal revision petition before the High Court to set aside the order of the Special Court and to permit him to view the pen drive containing CCTV visuals.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the original CCTV visuals from his house were with the petitioner itself and an examination of the pen drive submitted before the Court was not necessary.

The Court stated that the accused cannot be denied the right to view digital documents like CCTV visuals without infringing the victim's privacy in defending his case.

The Court thus stated that the order of the Special Court denying the right of the petitioner to view the CCTV visuals was not justifiable.

As such, the Revision Petition was allowed. The Court directed the Special Court to permit the petitioner and his Counsel to view the CCTV visuals on two days when the alleged incident took place before the start of the trial or during the trial.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Resmi Nandanan

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George

Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1218 Of 2024

Case Title: Aji v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 729