Kerala High Court Allows Defence Counsel to View POCSO CCTV Footage in Court but Refuses Copies

A supervised-access solution

Justice Jobin Sebastian directed the trial judge to arrange for defence counsel to view CCTV footage recovered from the alleged place of occurrence and to take necessary notes for cross-examination. The Court did not order the prosecution to hand over a digital copy of the footage. Instead, it adopted a supervised process in the courtroom, with the Public Prosecutor and Chief Ministerial Officer present, so that the accused could prepare an effective defence without creating an uncontrolled duplicate of material showing the child complainant.

The order is a partial allowance of the accused’s plea. It recognises that the accused has a strong interest in understanding evidence relied upon by the prosecution, while also accepting a concrete risk that circulating sensitive footage could expose the victim to misuse. The direction is tailored to the circumstances of this case and should not be read as a blanket rule that all electronic prosecution records can be withheld from every accused person.

Background of the trial

The case is pending before the Fast Track Special Court at Kottarakkara. The accused faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The complainant had been examined in chief as the first prosecution witness, and cross-examination remained pending. The accused sought copies of CCTV footage from the location, arguing that he needed to examine the material before questioning prosecution witnesses.

The trial court had refused to supply copies because of concerns about privacy and potential misuse. The accused relied on the Criminal Rules of Practice and the general right to receive prosecution materials, contending that an effective defence would otherwise be impaired. The prosecution pointed out that the footage included visuals of the victim and her mother. The High Court therefore faced a concrete conflict between disclosure for trial preparation and safeguarding the identity and dignity of a child.

Fair trial includes the victim’s interests

The Court acknowledged that access to prosecution material is an important safeguard for an accused. Without knowing the documents and recordings relied upon, a defendant may be unable to identify inconsistencies or meaningfully challenge testimony. But the bench also explained that the idea of a fair trial cannot be assessed solely from the accused’s perspective. A child complainant’s privacy and dignity remain relevant when a court decides how sensitive evidence is to be accessed.

The resulting balance protects the core purpose of disclosure while restricting a particular method of delivery. Counsel can inspect the footage and make notes; the accused does not receive an unrestricted copy for independent circulation. The distinction between inspection and possession matters in cases involving intimate or identifying material. It allows the trial to proceed while reducing a foreseeable risk of further harm to the complainant.

Practical implications for trial courts

The order shows how a court may craft access conditions rather than treating the problem as an all-or-nothing choice. A supervised viewing arrangement requires the trial court to make the recording available, ensure the appropriate officials are present and give defence counsel a genuine opportunity to take notes. Those arrangements must be workable in practice, particularly because the complainant’s cross-examination is still to be completed.

The Court did not decide whether the accused committed any charged offence. Nor did it make a finding about the evidentiary reliability of the footage itself. Those issues remain for the trial. The immediate next step is implementation of the viewing direction at Kottarakkara. The ruling is important because it links procedural fairness with privacy safeguards in handling digital evidence in a child-protection prosecution.