In the recent days, we have heard of many instances when CCTV footages have gone missing in important Criminal investigations. This will frustrate the investigations and completely destroy the case.
Deletion of CCTV footages have been alleged in the case of the complaint filed by a Police officer, in Karnataka against the privileged treatment meted out to some inmates of the Parappana Agrahara jail in Bangalore.
Though many of the CCTV footages are circulating in the media, the persons who were supposed to have collected and preserved it appear to have lost it.
Similarly, in the Sunanda Pushkar’s Case, the management of Leela Palace hotel apparently switched off the CCTVs just prior to the alleged murder (could be an excuse also) and the footages which should have showed who visited her earlier have been deleted. Additionally the mobile and the laptop also seems to have been cleaned out of any incriminating information.
Similarly in the case of the unnatural death of an IAS officer Mr D.K.Ravi, again in Karnataka, Police took custody of a storage device from a CCTV camera from the residence of the officer and returned it after two days saying that the tapes had no recording.
In all these cases, it is doubtful if the Courts would be naive enough to believe that the CCTVs were smart enough to have stopped working or go silent at the precise time when they could have provided evidence of what could be a murder or a high profile offence.
The persons responsible in all the three cases mentioned above are none other than the Police officers or Jail authorities who are supposed to know law and uphold it rather than being ignorant computer operators who did not know what they were deleting.
It is important to note that Information Technology Act 2000 (ITA 2000) had actually identified such possibilities and included Section 65 precisely for this purpose.
Section 65 of ITA 2000/8 states:
Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly causes another to conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network,
when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force,
shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.
Explanation –
For the purposes of this section, “Computer Source Code” means the listing of programmes, Computer Commands, Design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.
I am aware that some observers of Cyber Law might not have observed this possibility that Section 65 can be used for deletion of evidence.
They may hold a view that Section 65 is not applicable in the case of CCTV footage either because CCTV footage is not “Computer Source Code” or that the footage was not “required to be maintained under law for the time being”.
But a “Techno Legal Interpretation” of Section 65 indicates that Section 65 can be applied to such cases for the following reasons.
- It is not difficult to accept that the CCTV recording (assuming that it was present at one point of time and vanished later) was an electronic document that was deleted.
This electronic document was recognized as evidence in a potential criminal offence and hence should have been treated as “Evidence” that should have been retained and submitted to the Court or the investigating officer.
It’s deletion was therefore a contravention of both Section 65 of ITA 2000/8 and also Section 204 of IPC.
For applying Section 204, it is enough if the deleted electronic document was an “Evidence” .
For the deletion to be covered under Section 65, we may also have to examine if the electronic document can be considered as a “Computer Source Code” as defined under this section.
2. Generally, the word “Computer Source Code” is understood as
“any binary string which triggers a computing device to alter its state of activity”
In this incident, the binary code which human beings may call as “Video Recording” is read by a computer, which human beings may call as a “Video Player” and the computer later instructs the screen to show some pixel transformations that human beings may call as a “Display of video”.
The video recording therefore is nothing but a “Computer Source Code which Section 65 has referred to.
It is therefore clear that deletion of CCTV footage is a punishable offence under Section 204 of IPC (Punishable with 2 years imprisonment) and under Section 65 of ITA 2000/8 (punishable with 3 years of imprisonment).
Additionally the action may also invoke Section 43(i) and 43 (j) of ITA 2008 which provides for civil damage to be claimed by any person who suffers a damage as a result of such action. Since Section 43 is linked to Section 66, the action would also become a criminal offence for which the punishment is imprisonment of upto 3 years.
Both Section 65 and 66 are cognizable offences though are bailable.
If the deletion has been done by the computer operator under the instructions of his bosses or political directions, the persons who gave such instructions would become “accomplices”.
In the event the affected Police Officer in the case of the Parappana Agrahara incident is eventually suspended or dismissed from service etc and there by suffers a financial loss resulting out of the deletion of the CCTV footage, the affected person can invoke Adjudication (followed by appeal in a Court if required). It is not clear if there is any civil damage in the case of the other tow incidents namely the Sunanda Pushkar or D K Ravi case.
The discussion here is for academic purpose and to show how strong is ITA 2000/8 if it is properly interpreted. We are fully aware that since in all the above cases, the deletion can only be traced to law enforcement persons only, the possibility of any action being initiated there on is improbable and hence the above theory may never be tested at least in these three cases.
If however, CBI takes up the case or some body like Mr Subramanya Swamy takes note, they may bring up the issue before the Courts and we may have an interesting debate.
Naavi
Hello Sir,
It’s an interesting interpretation of ITA 2000, Sec 65.
Wondering whether the CCTV footage collection, storage & distribution is streamlined in the country?
There are many places and establishments like apartments, hotels etc., where the cctv footage is collected and at times its posted in social medias for various reasons.
Irrespective of the intentions of distributing such footage, do the authorities (those who have control on the cctv footage) have a legal ground to share with larger audience (thru social media) other than legal investigation agencies?
How is the privacy of people are protected when the cctv footage from an apartment complex for ex., is shared with 100s of people in a google groups, whatsapp groups or any other social media? Shouldn’t the person who posted or shared with other be punished?
There will always be some grey areas which law cannot address. As regards the CCTV footages from common place, by definition, activities in a common place or a public place is “having an impact on others”. Hence there should be no privacy attached to activities in a common place. As long as the CCTV does not try to use a telescope to pry into the window of a neighbor, we should tolerate its ability to take my picture if I walk out or even come to my balcony. Similarly when I am on the street, I should consider that I have abandoned the privacy of the four walls of my house. Any other interpretation would be impractical.
The basement renovation done by a local resident in our housing society is becoming a pain for us. Recently the guy has cut the connection to our CCTV cameras of the parking lot. This has become a security issue. What can be done?
This is an issue between the society and the individual. If the CCTV belongs to the society and it had been unauthorizedly disconnected, then it can be considered as a cyber crime.
The authority and goverment should take an legal step.
This cyber crime is not acceptable and the deletion of CCTV footage should be a punishable offense. Without that, cyber crime and anti-social acts will be increased.
My CCTV system was switched off and committed theft. The person switched off recognised, please guide under what section of IPC or IT act he should be prosecuted.
I suppose attempt to destroy evidence could be a charge.
I have installed four cctv at my office which is on rent agreement and the building is of an IAS Officer of Central Government. The Company who installed the CCTV in my office & Building, has somehow, given my password to someone else and the person outsider sees and watches visual all the time. In this matter, what should I do. A criminal complaint case can be registered against the Company who installed the CCTV in my office and how can I get the data, from which I can prove that some other unknown mobile numbers was attached / linked to my CCTV system.
Please do help me in this regard. I am in serious need of the solution.
Thanking You.
Tenant of the Building
This is a great article and you are banged on with your points about deletion of cctv footage could be an offence under section 6566 of ita 2008 and section 204 of ipc. Be clear about what you really need and want to accomplish at this point- you are right with this point.
Is this possible that cctv footage can be edited or amended?
This is a question to be addressed at the level of disproving the genuinity of the evidence…with a forensic report.
The act of committing cyber crimes is utterly unacceptable, and there should be strict penalties for deleting CCTV footage. Without such consequences, the incidence of cyber crimes and anti-social behavior is likely to escalate.