Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence : Challenges for
Legal Fraternity
Due to enormous growth in e-governance throughout the Public & Private
Sector, Electronic Evidence have involved into a fundamental pillar of
communication, processing and documentation. These various forms of
electronic evidence are increasingly being used in both Civil & Criminal
Litigations. During trials, Judges are often asked to rule on the admissibility of
electronic evidence and it substantially impacts the outcome of civil law suit or
conviction/acquittal of the accused. The Court continue to grapple with this
new electronic frontier as the unique nature of e-evidence, as well as the ease
with which it can be fabricated or falsified, creates hurdle to admissibility not
faced with the other evidences. The various categories of electronic evidence
such as website data, social network communication, e-mail, SMS/MMS and
computer generated documents poses unique problem and challenges for
proper authentication and subject to a different set of views.
The Indian Evidence Act has been amended by virtue of Section 92 of

Information Technology Act, 2000 (Before amendment). Section 3 of the Act
was amended and the phrase “All documents produced for the inspection of
the Court” were substituted by “All documents including electronic records
produced for the inspection of the Court”. Regarding the documentary
evidence, in Section 59, for the words “Content of documents” the words
“Content of documents or electronic records” have been substituted and
Section 65A & 65B were inserted to incorporate the admissibility of electronic
evidence.
In Section 61 to 65, the word “Document or content of documents” have not
been replaced by the word “Electronic documents or content of electronic
documents”. Thus, the intention of the legislature is explicitly clear i.e. not to
extend the applicability of section 61 to 65 to the electronic record. It is the
cardinal principle of interpretation that if the legislature has omitted to use
any word, the presumption is that the omission is intentional. It is well settled
that the Legislature does not use any word unnecessarily. In this regard, the
Apex Court in Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Orissa[1] held that “…Parliament is also not expected to express itself
unnecessarily. Even as Parliament does not use any word without meaning
something, Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is called for.
Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for the sake of legislation; nor
indulge in legislation merely to state what it is unnecessary to state or to do
what is already validly done. Parliament may not be assumed to legislate
unnecessarily.”
On the other hand, in Section 61 to 65 Indian Evidence Act, the word
“Document or content of documents” have not been replaced by the word
“Electronic documents or content of electronic documents”. Thus, the
omission of the word, “Electronic Records” in the scheme of Section 61 to 65
signifies the clear and explicit legislative intention, i.e. not to extend the
applicability of Section 61 to 65 to the electronic record in view of overriding
provision of Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act dealing exclusively with the
admissibility of the electronic record which in view of the compelling
technological reasons can be admitted only in the manner specified under
Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act.
The main objective to introduce the specific provision has its origin to the
technical nature of the evidence particularly as the evidence in the electronic
form cannot be produced in the court of law owing to the size of
computer/server, residing in the machine language and thus, requiring the
interpreter to read the same. The Section 65B of the Evidence Act makes the
secondary copy in the form of computer output comprising of printout or the
data copied on electronic/magnetic media. It provides:-
Section 65B – Admissibility of Electronic Records

Sec. 65B(1): Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information
contained in an electronic record -
 which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or

 copied in optical or magnetic media
 produced by a computer
 shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this
section are satisfied
 in relation to the information and
 computer in question and
 shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production
of the original,
 as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of
which direct evidence would be admissible.
Sec. 65B(2):
 The computer from which the record is generated was regularly used to
store or process information in respect of activity regularly carried on by a
person having lawful control over the period, and relates to the period over
which the computer was regularly used;
 Information was fed in computer in the ordinary course of the activities
of the person having lawful control over the computer;
 The computer was operating properly, and if not, was not such as to affect
the electronic record or its accuracy;
 Information reproduced is such as is fed into computer in the ordinary
course of activity.
Sec.65B(3):
The following computers shall constitute as single computer-
 by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

 by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
 by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that
period; or
 in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in
whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations
of computers,
Sec. 65B(4):
Regarding the person who can issue the certificate and contents of certificate,
it provides the certificate doing any of the following things:
 identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing

the manner in which it was produced;
 giving the particulars of device
 dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-
section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official
position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management
of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any
matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall
be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of
the person stating it.
This contention is further strengthened by the insertion of Section 65A & 65B
and the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act” which is a
non-obstante clause, further fortifies the fact that the legislature has intended
the production or exhibition of the electronic records by Section 65A & 65B
only. A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to
give the enacting part of the Section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect
over the provision in the same or other act mentioned in the non-obstante
clause. It is equivalent to saying that despite of the provisions or act
mentioned in the non-obstante clause, the provision following it will have its
full operation or the provisions embraced in the non-obstante clause will not
be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provision in which
the non-obstante clause occurs.[2]
The aforesaid principles of interpretation with respect to the non-obstante
clause in form of “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act” is further
supported by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Anr., v. G.M.
Kokil and Ors.[3] observed “It is well-known that a non obstante clause is a
legislative device which is usually employed to give overriding effect to
certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in
the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the
operation and effect of all contrary provisions.” Further, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case cited as Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S.
Guram[4], explained the scope of non-obstante clause as “…It is equivalent to
saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in
the non obstante clause or any contract or document mentioned the
enactment following it will have its full operation…”
ANVAR P.V. VERSUS , P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS [5]
In this significant judgment, the Supreme Court has settled the controversies
arising from the various conflicting judgments as well as the practices being
followed in the various High Courts and the Trial Courts as to the admissibility
of the Electronic Evidences. The Court has interpreted the Section 22A, 45A,
59, 65A & 65B of the Evidence Act and held that secondary data in
CD/DVD/Pen Drive are not admissible without a certificate U/s 65 B(4) of
Evidence Act. It has been elucidated that electronic evidence without
certificate U/s 65B cannot be proved by oral evidence and also the opinion of
the expert U/s 45A Evidence Act cannot be resorted to make such electronic
evidence admissible.
The judgment would have serious implications in all the cases where the
prosecution relies on the electronic data and particularly in the cases of
anticorruption where the reliance is being placed on the audio-video
recordings which are being forwarded in the form of CD/DVD to the Court. In
all such cases, where the CD/DVD are being forwarded without a certificate
U/s 65B Evidence Act, such CD/DVD are not admissible in evidence and
further expert opinion as to their genuineness cannot be looked into by the
Court as evident from the Supreme Court Judgment. It was further observed
that all these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity,
which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic records sought to be used
as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering,
alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial
based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
In the anticorruption cases launched by the CBI and anticorruption/Vigilance
agencies of the State, even the original recording which are recorded either in
Digital Voice Recorders/mobile phones are not been preserved and thus, once
the original recording is destroyed, there cannot be any question of issuing the
certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. Therefore in such cases,
neither CD/DVD containing such recordings are admissible and cannot be
exhibited into evidence nor the oral testimony or expert opinion is admissible
and as such, the recording/data in the CD/DVD’s cannot become a sole basis
for the conviction.
In the aforesaid Judgment, the Court has held that Section 65B of the
Evidence Act being a ‘not obstante clause’ would override the general law on
secondary evidence under Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. The Section
63 and Section 65 of the Evidence Act have no application to the secondary
evidence of the electronic evidence and same shall be wholly governed by the
Section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. The Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court overruled the judgment laid down in the State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru[(2005) 11 SCC 600 by the
two judge Bench of the Supreme Court. The court specifically observed that
the Judgment of Navjot Sandhu supra, to the extent, the statement of the law
on admissibility of electronic evidence pertaining to electronic record of this
Court, does not lay down correct position and required to be overruled.
The only options to prove the electronic record/evidence is by producing the
original electronic media as Primary Evidence court or it’s copy by way
secondary evidence U/s 65A/65B of Evidence Act. Thus, in the case of CD,
DVD, Memory Card etc. containing secondary evidence, the same shall be
accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of
taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that
electronic record, is inadmissible.
Other Important Judgments

Relying upon the judgment of Anvar P.V. supra, while considering the
admissibility of transcription of recorded conversation in a case where the
recording has been translated, the Supreme Court held that as the voice
recorder had itself not subjected to analysis, there is no point in placing
reliance on the translated version. Without source, there is no authenticity for
the translation. Source and authenticity are the two key factors for electronic
evidence.
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [6]

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, while deciding the charges against accused
in a corruption case observed that since audio and video CDs in question are
clearly inadmissible in evidence, therefore trial court has erroneously relied
upon them to conclude that a strong suspicion arises regarding petitioners
criminally conspiring with co-accused to commit the offence in question.
Thus, there is no material on the basis of which, it can be reasonably said that
there is strong suspicion of the complicity of the petitioners in commission of
the offence in question. Ankur Chawla Vs. CBI [7]
The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta while deciding the admissibility of email
held that an email downloaded and printed from the email account of the
person can be proved by virtue of Section 65B r/w Section 88A of Evidence
Act. The testimony of the witness to carry out such procedure to download and
print the same is sufficient to prove the electronic communication. Abdul
Rahaman Kunji Vs. The State of West Bengal [8]
In the recent judgment pronounced by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, while
dealing with the admissibility of intercepted telephone call in a CD and CDR
which were without a certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act, the court observed that
the secondary electronic evidence without certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is
inadmissible and cannot be looked into by the court for any purpose
whatsoever. Jagdeo Singh Vs. The State and Ors.[9]
Conclusion
The admissibility of the secondary electronic evidence has to be adjudged
within the parameters of Section 65B of Evidence Act and the proposition of
the law settled in the recent judgment of the Apex Court and various other
High Courts as discussed above. The proposition is clear and explicit that if
the secondary electronic evidence is without a certificate u/s 65B of Evidence
Act, it is not admissible and any opinion of the forensic expert and the
deposition of the witness in the court of law cannot be looked into by the
court. However, there are few gaps which are still unresolved as what would be
the fate of the secondary electronic evidence seized from the accused wherein,
the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act cannot be taken and the accused cannot
be made witness against himself as it would be violative of the Article 19 of the
Constitution of India.
1. Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported as AIR
1987 SC 1454
2. See ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edition by Justice G.P.
Singh – Chapter V, Synopsis IV at pages 318 & 319
3. Union of India and Anr., v. G.M. Kokil and Ors. [(1984)SCR196]
4. Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram [(1986)3SCR866]
5. ANVAR P.V. VERSUS , P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS
[MANU/SC/0834/2014]
6. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke
[MANU/SC/0040/2015]
7. Ankur Chawla v. CBI [MANU/DE/2923/2014]
8. Abdul Rahaman Kunji v. The State of West Bengal
[MANU/WB/0828/2014]
9. Jagdeo Singh v. The State and Ors. [MANU/DE/0376/2015]

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence : Challenges for

The Indian Evidence Act has been amended by virtue of Section 92 of

Section 65B – Admissibility of Electronic Records

 which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or

 by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

 identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing

Other Important Judgments

Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [6]

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.