Not required for video to be reduced to transcript for evidence: Supreme Court

Apex court says that a video is akin to the contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the court to draw an appropriate inference

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declared that it is not the requirement of law that the content of a video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the electronic evidence.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan said a compact disc containing the video is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is fulfilled, it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document.

The court emphasised that the video recorded therein is akin to the contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the court to draw an appropriate inference.

The court set aside the Bombay High Court's 2024 order, which directed retrial in an Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case related to an alleged recovery of ganja in Akola.

'Totally misconceived and baseless'

Finding the High Court's order as "totally misconceived and baseless", the bench said, "No doubt, there may be an occasion where to appreciate the contents of a video, an explanatory statement may be needed, but that would depend on the facts of a case.''

The High Court said the video-recording of the search and seizure operation was the best evidence, but it was not converted into admissible evidence. It also noted the video was not played while recording the statement of each witness, so as to enable the witness to explain the video in his own words in his deposition. 

The High Court also said no transcript of the video was prepared, and when it was played in court, in the absence of the explanatory statement of the witnesses related to the video, its content could not be understood.

Setting aside the High Court order, the apex court said, "Interestingly, the High Court did not dispute that the electronic record was duly exhibited as there existed a certificate envisaged under sub-section (4) of Section 65B."

However, strangely, the apex court said the High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it was played during the deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words, resulting in a transcript of the video. 

"In our view, this is a strange and unacceptable reasoning,'' the bench said.

The court felt, if the High Court, as an appellate court, had difficulty in understanding the contents of the video, which was part of the record, it could have called for the presence of the accused as well as the witnesses or their respective lawyers to explain the significance of what appears in that video.

The bench also said the power to take additional evidence is there under Section 391 of the CrPC. 

"However, to merely understand the video, in our view, there is no justification to order a re-trial and fresh recording of evidence," the bench said.

'Consider appeal afresh'

The court directed for a fresh consideration of the appeal filed by Kailash and another person before the High Court against their conviction and sentence.

In its September 15, 2025, judgment authored by Justice Misra, the court also held that under Section 293 of the CrPC, a report of a chemical examiner is admissible even if he is not produced as a witness, though the court may summon and examine him as to the subject matter of the report.

"There is no such requirement of law that a chemical examiner would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when it is otherwise admissible under sub-section (1) of Section 293 of the CrPC,'' the bench said.