Kulgam court directs police to produce CCTV footage in POCSO case

Kulgam: The Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam, has directed the police authorities to preserve and produce the CCTV footage of Police Station Devsar in a case registered under the POCSO Act, observing that fairness in criminal justice operates in both directions and that digital evidence capable of objectively verifying facts cannot be shut out.

The directions were passed by Principal Sessions Judge Aijaz Ahmed Khan on an application moved under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by the accused, Rayees Ahmad Bhat, a resident of Banimulla, Tehsil Pahloo, District Kulgam.

The applicant is facing trial in connection with FIR No. 37/2026 registered at Police Station Qazigund under Sections 137(2) (kidnapping) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

According to the chargesheet presented by the prosecution, the alleged offences were committed against the minor victim on May 20, 2026, and the accused was formally shown as arrested on May 21, 2026.

However, moving the court at the stage preceding the consideration of charge, counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution story was fabricated, asserting that the applicant was already taken into illegal custody and continuously confined inside Police Station Devsar from May 15, 2026, onwards.

The applicant contended that CCTV cameras installed at the main gate, lock-up, reporting room, and corridors of Police Station Devsar constitute the best electronic evidence to prove that he was physically in police custody on May 20, 2026, making his presence at the alleged scene of crime impossible.

He pleaded that unless summoned and preserved immediately, the footage was likely to be overwritten or erased in the ordinary course of maintenance.

Opposing the application, Public Prosecutor Rafi Ahmad Mir argued that under Sections 250 and 251 of the BNSS, the court at the stage of framing charge is bound to consider only the police report and documents filed by the investigating agency.

The prosecution contended that an accused cannot be allowed to introduce defence material or set up an alibi before the commencement of trial, seeking outright dismissal of the application.

After examining statutory provisions and landmark Supreme Court rulings, the Principal Sessions Judge observed that while an accused cannot demand a roving or fishing inquiry, the court possesses ample statutory power under Section 94 BNSS to secure specific, objectively verifiable digital records that go to the very root of the accusation.

“The prosecution alleges commission of the offence on 20.05.2026. The accused asserts that he was already in custody on that very date. This is not a peripheral circumstance. The alleged custody, if established, may have a direct bearing upon the accused’s physical availability at the relevant time. If an accused was continuously confined at a place from which his movement to the alleged place of occurrence was impossible, that circumstance would be substantially different from a conventional defence which merely seeks to challenge the credibility of a prosecution witness,” the court said.

The judge said that the court’s direction to produce the digital record does not amount to accepting the plea of innocence at this threshold stage.

“The Court is not, by directing production of the CCTV footage, accepting the accused’s plea of custody. Nor is the Court recording a finding that the prosecution case is false. The Court is only directing production of an objectively existing electronic record so that the factual assertion may be verified. This distinction is of considerable importance. Summoning evidence is not the same thing as accepting evidence. It is merely to secure the relevant material,” the court noted.

Addressing the sensitivity of POCSO proceedings, the court stressed that strict statutory provisions cannot be a ground to deny an accused legitimate procedural safeguards.

“In a criminal proceeding where the accused faces serious allegations under the POCSO Act, the Court must ensure that the prosecution is subjected to a fair judicial examination while simultaneously safeguarding the rights of the child victim. Fairness operates in both directions. The criminal justice system is founded upon a fair procedure. The seriousness of the offence alleged under the POCSO Act cannot justify denial of a legally available procedural safeguard to the accused,” the court said.

Allowing the application, the court directed the officer or custodian in charge of the CCTV system at Police Station Devsar to preserve and produce the CCTV footage from the relevant cameras for the period between May 15, 2026, and May 20, 2026, or such available portion covering the custodial premises on May 20, 2026.

The court ordered that the electronic record must be produced in its native digital format alongside a playable copy, accompanied by a mandatory certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, specifying system operational details, extraction method, date and time settings, and camera locations.

The Investigating Officer was further directed to submit all contemporaneous arrest, daily diary, custody, and remand records pertaining to the accused for the relevant dates.

The court clarified that it has expressed no opinion on the credibility of the prosecutrix, the genuineness of the defence, or the ultimate merits of the case. The matter has been listed for receipt and consideration of the electronic records on September 19, 2026, after which the court will proceed with the consideration of charge.

Advocate Peer Aabid represented the applicant, while Public Prosecutor Rafi Ahmad Mir appeared for the Union Territory.