People often think that videos are the perfect proof to have them in court, and often they are right. While video from your cell phone can be good evidence of your case, there is never a guarantee that the judge will allow it. With years of litigation experience, our lawyers understand pennsylvania`s rules of evidence and we have successfully used them to help many of our clients.  K. Ramajayam alias Appu v. Police Inspector 2016 Cree. L.J. 1542 hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=oVz058q2ZLjDVEITM0Vw1EFEwXGzAWF8VVN1fUzLICt2cQLkXismJaz1M3Foo51f&caseno=RT/1/2015&cCode=1&appFlag= (Madras Supreme Court) In the case of VIDEO surveillance recordings, virtual platforms such as the cloud, server or storage device present in the computer to record and store them are considered primary evidence. When a video is transferred to a CD/DVD/hard drive/memory chip/USB flash drive using a computer originally registered via a video camera or other media, the memory card of that video camera is considered primary evidence and the CD/DVD/hard drive/memory chip/USB flash drive to which it was transferred.
be subsequently admissible as secondary evidence. Evidence admissible by videoconference – Justice over time for the purpose of practicing justice and speeding up the trial allows for the taking of evidence by videoconference  (V. Rama Naidu And Another vs Smt. V. Ramadevi). The judiciary issued a statement to adapt a pragmatic view while accepting evidence via videoconference  (International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) v/Madhu Bala Nath). There are certain conditions to be met when accepting the videoconference, which are in the case of In Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation vs. NRI Film Production Associates (P) Ltd. These conditions ensure that the procedure provided for in the relevant laws on the admissibility of evidence is properly followed in order to ensure a fair trial. In addition, using recordings of your calls and conversations for defamation or blackmail purposes may expose you to liability. It is very common for us to take out our phone and photograph or film interesting things that happen in our daily lives. When you witness a crime, it is understandable that you can start recording the incident on your mobile phone. This video can help you look at your situation after the fact, but you might be interested in using it to clean up your misconduct name.
The use of cell phone videos as evidence in court is certainly possible, but the admissibility of evidence is not always guaranteed. If you want to use cell phone evidence in your case, your lawyer will need to convince the judge that the video footage is both relevant to your case and reliable. Therefore, it is quite clear that in cases where the data itself is generated/created/saved directly to a CD, DVD, hard drive, memory chip and USB flash drive without human intervention, this is considered primary evidence. However, if this data is transferred to another electronic device such as CD, DVD, hard drive, memory chip, USB stick, etc. are transmitted or copied, when human intervention results in even one iota of the possibility of someone manipulating the data, in such a scenario, such evidence is copied or retransmitted to another CD, DVD, chip, memory card, etc. are considered secondary evidence and are admissible, which requires strict evidence to make it admissible. As far as video recordings are concerned, they have the same probative value as that of an audio recording (Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others Versus Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rep.
by its Secretary & Another). The video recording can take the form of a multimedia file generated by a Handycam or in the form of video surveillance equipment, but there is no doubt about its admissibility. If a video recording is to be filed in court, it can be filed as main evidence (Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Versus State (NCT Delhi)) if the memory chip/CD/DVD/hard drive is offered in Evidence  (K. Ramajayam aka Appu v. Inspector of Police) with the video camera that generated the file. In cases where primary evidence is not available or virtually impossible to present to the court, a copy of that video recording made by a computer program is admissible as secondary evidence under the conditions set out in Article 65(B). Electronic records as defined in the Information Technology Act 2008 cover a wide range of formats in which data or media can be presented. Some of them are CDs, DVDs, USB flash drives, hard drives, phone recordings, video recordings, sound recordings, emails, images, etc.
Each of these electronic documents deals with different conditions regarding their admissibility before the courts. Mobile phones can be a very useful resource when it comes to probative value. Mobile phones can be used to track location  (Omprakash vs. State Of M.P.), call recordings and submit media such as images and videos. If media files generated via mobile phones are to be presented to the court as evidence, then in these cases, the mobile phone must be submitted to the court along with the memory card, if any, used to store these files  (State (Nct Of Delhi) vs. Firoz Khan & Anr). Media generated by mobile phones can also be submitted as other secondary evidence, i.e. by transferring data to CD/DVD/hard drive, memory chip, USB flash drive, etc. using a computer and submission with a certificate in accordance with Article 65B (4)  (Kamal Patel vs Ram Kishore Dogne).
Technology has changed and evolved rapidly over time. Therefore, it becomes on the agenda to adapt and change to technological changes. This need for change has been very well recognized by the courts and legislators in India. When you present evidence to the court, it must be authentic.