Justice Jobin Sebastian directed the trial judge to make arrangements to enable the accused's counsel to view the footage inside the courtroom and to take down necessary notes to facilitate the cross-examination of the witnesses.

“Although the right to a fair trial is a valuable right available to an accused, the concept of a fair trial cannot be viewed solely from the perspective of the accused. It must also be considered in conjunction with the rights and interests of the victim, including her right to privacy and dignity, as well as the broader interests of society. A proper balance must, therefore, be maintained between the accused's right to an effective defence and the need to protect the victim from any infringement of her privacy and dignity,” the Court observed.

The Court was considering a plea preferred by the sole accused in a criminal case pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Kottarakkara. He is accused of the Sections 115(2), 118(1), 64(1), 74, 75 and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3(b) r/w 4, 7 r/w 8 and 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.

Before the trial court, victim was examined in chief as PW1 and her cross-examination is yet to be conducted. The petitioner preferred an application before the trial court alleging that he was not furnished with copies of the CCTV footage retrieved from the place of occurrence.

He pointed out that he was entitled to receive copies of all prosecution materials as per Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The trial court, however, declined to furnish copies of the CCTV footage stating concerns of privacy and misuse. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner/accused contended that without viewing the CCTV footage, he will not be able to present an effective defence and he will be seriously prejudiced. The prosecution argued that the footage contains visuals of the victim and her mother and there would be a risk of misuse if it is given to the accused.

After hearing the parties, the Court remarked that the accused has the constitutional right to receive copies of prosecution records:

“it is significant to note that the right of an accused to receive copies of the prosecution records is an essential safeguard, without which the accused's constitutional right to effectively defend the case cannot be adequately protected. An accused facing criminal prosecution is entitled to know the nature of the allegations levelled against him, as well as the documents and records upon which the prosecution proposes to rely during the trial, before the commencement of the trial. It is only upon being furnished with such documents and records that the accused can formulate an appropriate defence and effectively defend the case.”

The Court, however, agreed that there is a possibility of misuse by the accused if it is handed over to him. It was, thus, of the view that it is better not to furnish the same to protect the victim's privacy and anonymity.

The Court opined that the accused's right to effective defence and cross-examination can be adequately safeguarded by giving a direction to permit the defence counsel to view it in the courtoom in the presence of the trial court's Public Prosecutor and Chief Ministerial Officer.

Thus, it partly allowed the plea.

Counsel for the petitioner: S. Rajeev, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Dipa V., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Akash Cherian Thomas, T.P. Aravind, Ebee Antony

Counsel for the respondent: V.R. Ramlal – Public Prosecutor