Evidence Act, 1872: s.65B(4) – Videography of scene of crime or scene of recovery during investigation – Electronic evidence – Admissibility of – Procedural requirement – Held: If the electronic evidence is authentic and relevant the same certainly be admitted subject to the court being satisfied about its authenticity and procedure, for its admissibility may depend on fact situation such as whether the person producing such evidence is in a position to furnish certificate under s.65B(4) – A party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced cannot be required to produce certificate under s.65B(4) – The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies – The applicability of procedural requirement under s.65B(4) of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party – In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of ss.63 and 65 cannot be held to be excluded – In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked – If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under s.65B(4) which party producing cannot possibly secure – Thus, requirement of certificate under s.65B(4) is not always mandatory – Information Technology Act, 2000 – ss.2(t), 2(o). Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015)
7 SCC 178 : [2015] 1 SCR 721; Ram Singh and Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) Supp SCC 611 : [1985] Suppl. SCR 399 – relied on
Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010)
4 SCC 329 : [2010] 2 SCR 396; Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 : [2012]
8 SCR 295; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79; Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473:[2014]
11 SCR 399 – referred to
R. v. Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464; R. v. Robson (1972) 2 ALL ER 699 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.