Supreme Court of India· 03 September 2026

Can CCTV footage and call detail records be relied on without a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act?

KONDAPAKA SRIDHAR @SHEKAR v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA

2026 INSC 951 · Criminal Appeal No.4512 of 2025
Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The CCTV footage of the withdrawals could only be disbelieved: it was not possible to identify the accused from the footage, and the certificate required for electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was absent. The cellphone records produced by the Investigating Officer were likewise not looked into, the Nodal Officer of the service provider not having been examined and the Section 65B certificate again being absent — so the entire story of a careful analysis of the call records falls flat.

Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — s.65B — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Test Identification Parade — Electronic evidence — Acquittal — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — Occupation of the premises unproved — Section 106 cannot be invoked — Held: Where the ownership of the flat from which the corpus delicti was recovered is not proved and the witness’s employment as watchman is not established, the theory of lease is debunked and reliance on Section 106 falls with it. (¶11) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.65B — CCTV footage and call records — Certificate absent — Held further: CCTV footage produced without the certificate required under Section 65B, and call records not proved through the Nodal Officer of the service provider, cannot be looked into; the analysis built on those records falls flat. (¶6, 12) Evidence — Confessions — Discovery at the instance of an acquitted co-accused — Held further: Confessions cannot be relied on to inculpate any of the accused, and the statement of a co-accused who has been acquitted, leading to the discovery, cannot incriminate another, no independent witness having been examined. (¶4, 13) Circumstantial evidence — No substantive evidence connecting the accused — Conviction set aside — On facts, held: But for the post-mortem finding and the recovery of the body, there is no scrap of evidence worthy of reliance to connect the accused to the murder or even the flat. Conviction set aside; appeal allowed. (¶15, 16)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 6The High Court found that the CCTV footage showing the withdrawal of the amounts, can only be disbelieved since it was not possible to identify the accused from the footage and also for the absence of a certificate, as required for an electronic evidence to be brought in evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The cellphone records, as produced by the I.O, were also not looked into since the Nodal Officer of the service provider was not examined and here too, there was absence of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Paragraph 12As we noticed at the outset, there was no substantive evidence led before the Trial Court by the prosecution. The investigation was shoddy and merely relied on the confessions and the lewd story coming out of the confessions connecting A1 to A2 & A3 and A2 to the deceased. The money recovered at the instance of A1 and A6, was not traced to the crime of ‘kidnapping and ransom demand’. As we already found, the prosecution case was that, it was on analyzing the call records that PW11, the I.O, was led to A6, resulting in his arrest and confession. The call records having not been properly proved through the Nodal Officer of the service provider and no certificate under Section 65B having been produced and proved, the entire story of careful analysis of the call records, falls flat.

Paragraph 14The money too, though, asserted to have been withdrawn by the accused as evident from the CCTV footage taken from the ATM counter, the CCTV footage could not be properly proved in evidence for reason of non-production of certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The High Court has also noticed that there was no clarity in the footage to identify the accused as such. The money recovered from A1 and A6, hence, cannot be connected with the crime. More importantly, there was a deposit made in an account in the name of one Geetanjali, there was no investigation on that front and the person who maintained that account has not been brought to the dock. The account statement showing the withdrawals through an ATM counter were also not produced and proved, by examining an official of the Bank, in which the account was maintained.

Acts & Sections

s.106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of KONDAPAKA SRIDHAR @SHEKAR v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can Section 106 of the Evidence Act be invoked where the accused's occupation of the premises is not proved?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections