In an important ruling on electronic evidence in matrimonial disputes, the Gujarat High Court has held that CCTV footage showing a husband assaulting his wife can be looked into by the court even if it is not accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, but such footage cannot be treated as “proof” of cruelty at this stage.
Background Of The Case
The case arose from matrimonial litigation where the wife had placed on record CCTV footage allegedly capturing her husband beating and ill-treating her inside the matrimonial home. She sought to rely on this footage to establish cruelty and support her prayer for relief. The husband objected, arguing that in the absence of a proper Section 65B certificate, the footage is inadmissible as electronic evidence.
What Is Section 65B Certificate?
Section 65B of the Evidence Act governs admissibility of electronic records and requires a specific certificate as a condition for such material to be read as evidence in court. The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal has clarified that this requirement is generally mandatory for electronic evidence to be admitted in regular trials.
Against this backdrop, the Gujarat High Court examined whether, and to what extent, a family court can look at CCTV footage that lacks the technical certification prescribed by Section 65B. The court noted that proceedings of matrimonial and domestic nature have a different texture from regular criminal trials, and that family courts are given wider discretion to receive material which may not strictly fulfil all technical requirements, especially at an interim or prima facie stage.
Court’s Key Observations
The High Court drew a distinction between “looking at” such footage to understand the circumstances between the parties and “relying upon” it as conclusive legal proof. It held that the family court is not completely barred from perusing the footage merely because the certificate is absent. However, unless the requirement of Section 65B is satisfied at the appropriate stage, the CCTV recording cannot be treated as formal evidence for finally proving cruelty or for returning definitive findings on facts.
Limited Admissibility Allowed
The bench therefore permitted the footage to be considered for limited purposes – such as appreciating the wife’s allegations, assessing her safety and well-being, and evaluating interim relief – while making it clear that strict standards of admissibility would have to be complied with before the same footage could be used as the primary basis for a final adjudication.
Balancing Technicality And Justice
This nuanced approach balances two competing concerns: on one hand, the statutory safeguards against manipulation of electronic records through Section 65B, and on the other, the need to ensure that victims of domestic violence are not left remediless merely because they initially lack a technical certificate for CCTV material that prima facie shows serious abuse.
The ruling is likely to guide family courts and matrimonial judges dealing with secretly recorded CCTV clips and other digital material in domestic violence and cruelty cases, where electronic evidence often plays a crucial role
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
