Mandatory usage of audio-visual recordings for crime scenes would require budgetary provisions as each police station would require multiple devices
Representation Pic
The new criminal laws – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, may come with an additional financial burden on the state’s exchequer. The advocates, human rights activists and criminologists worried, as they are of the view that mandatory usage of audio-video visual recording at crime scene investigation and search & seizures as directed under Section 176 (3) of BNSS, especially in connection to offences with seven years or above seven years of punishment, may put an additional financial burden on the states which are already under debt.
ADVERTISEMENT
Volume of videography work
As per the Crime in India report for 2022 published by the National Crime Records Bureau, 58.24 lakh IPC and Special and Local Laws (SLL) crimes were reported in India. It is estimated that 20 per cent of these crimes involve punishments of seven years or more, and seizures occur in 35 per cent of cases. Consequently, it is estimated that 11.64 lakh crimes will require crime scene photography and videography as per Clause 176 of the BNSS, and 20.38 lakh crimes will involve seizures. The states will have to cater to the needs of police stations for the additional burden of audio-video recording as mandated in new criminal laws (See box for minimum requirements).
Budgetary implications
“The BNS, being a procedural law, will require financial support for implementation with provisions that require the employment of audio-visual recordings while conducting search and seizure operations or while collecting victim/witness testimonies during the course of crime investigation or while conducting a trial,” said Venkatesh Nayak, Director Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), New Delhi.
Usage of digital technology
When asked to elaborate, Venkatesh said, “The employment of digital technology at various stages of the investigation process starting with the public disclosure of the details of the persons arrested to the test identification parade conducted for the convenience of a person with physical or psycho-social disabilities or the issuance of summons by the trial court digitally, will incur additional expenditure by the police and the courts.
“The financial memoranda attached to the BNSS Bill at the time of initial tabling and while passing in Parliament blandly stated that no recurring or non-recurring expenditure would be incurred on the Consolidated Fund of India for its implementation. This is strange for two reasons - firstly, BNSS will be implemented by the police in the seven union territories where budgetary support for the police and the courts as well as prisons is provided from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Secondly, what about the expenditure that would be incurred by the states from their respective Consolidated Funds for implementing the cost-heavy new provisions of the BNSS? There has been very little discussion about these matters in the public domain,” said Venkatesh.
“It is common knowledge that the police are more often than not constrained by inadequate budgetary support to cover investigation expenses. Instances of the victims/survivors of crime being compelled to meet expenses on fuel for the police vehicles or paying for the photography/videography of the crime scene are not uncommon. There are also instances where the Investigating Officer (IO) pays for some of these expenses from his pocket. How good is that loss made is anybody's guess,” said Venkatesh.
Lack of clarity
Section 176(3) of the BNSS mandates videography for forensic evidence collection, a move aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability. However, it lacks clarity on the required equipment, potentially leading to the use of personal devices by officers. This raises concerns about the susceptibility of electronic records to tampering and challenges in maintaining the integrity and chain of custody of evidence.
“The Supreme Court in the Shafhi Mohammad case highlighted the importance of audio-video technology in investigations and the need for adequate infrastructure and training. Current limitations, including lack of funding, equipment, secure storage systems, and forensic facilities, pose significant challenges. As per the current RBI reports states like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, etc., already burdened with massive debts, face additional financial strain in implementing these provisions, underscoring the need for a coordinated approach between central and state governments to manage these obligations effectively,” said advocate Mohini Priya, advocate on record, Supreme Court.
Safeguard higher footing
“Now it is a basic rule that as the society changes the law shall always change and therefore the new system of digitally recording of evidence will move towards speedy and transparent trail. Though this will incur burden on the state but the safeguard of an individual is always on a higher footing,” said advocate Shreeprasad Parab, constitutional expert, practicing in Mumbai courts.
State would have to budget for
>> Minimum number of five audio video recorders required for a police station considering five investigating officers. (This will be a necessity till state migrates fully to e-sakshya facility)
>> One dedicated desktop for evidence specialist/ data manager/ information assistant (whatever term states use as per norms of the delegation, recruitment or training for the digital forensic expert) at each police station.
>> Dedicated vehicle for digital forensic experts/ first responders to reach the scene of crime.
>> A dedicated room with work stations for forensic teams and first responders to store and collect their equipment and transfer their files to the desk station.
>> Storage facility at data cent for parallel storage, till states fully integrate to e-sakshya facility.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
