Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2018
Citation: Not Available in the provided text.
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can electronic evidence be admitted in court if the person presenting it does not have control over the device that generated it? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, alongside the use of videography in crime scene investigations, in a recent judgment. This case clarifies the procedural requirements for admitting electronic evidence and explores the benefits of using technology to enhance the reliability of evidence collection. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case originated from a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2302 of 2017, where the court considered whether videography of crime scenes should be mandatory to ensure the reliability of collected evidence. During the proceedings, the court also took up Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9431 of 2011, which raised a question on the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. The court noted that the use of videography and other technological advancements could help in investigations, and that this was being successfully used in other countries. The court also took note of the concerns about the practical implementation of such measures, including the cost and storage of data, and the admissibility of evidence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court initially addressed the issue of videography in crime scene investigations in SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017. During the course of these proceedings, the court also took up SLP(Crl.) No. 9431/2011, which raised concerns about the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. The court heard arguments from various parties, including amicus curiae, and the Union of India, regarding the interpretation and applicability of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 65A of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence.
• Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section outlines the conditions for the admissibility of electronic records, particularly the requirement of a certificate. The court noted that Section 65B of the Evidence Act was a procedural provision to prove relevant admissible evidence and was intended to supplement the law on the point by declaring that any information in an electronic record, covered by the said provision, was to be deemed to be a document and admissible in any proceedings without further proof of the original.
• Section 62 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section defines primary evidence.
• Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section defines secondary evidence.
• Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section defines a “document” as any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures, or marks.
• Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000: This section defines “electronic record” as data, record, or data generated, image, or sound stored, received, or sent in an electronic form or microfilm or computer-generated microfiche.
• Section 2(o) of the Information Technology Act, 2000: This section defines “data” as a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalized manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed, or has been processed in a computer system or computer network.

Arguments

The following arguments were presented before the Supreme Court:

• Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner:
  • The primary argument was that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act should not be mandatory when the electronic evidence is produced by a person who is not in control of the device from which the electronic document was generated.
  • It was argued that Section 65B of the Evidence Act is a procedural provision and should not be interpreted in a way that prevents the admissibility of relevant and authentic electronic evidence.
• Arguments on behalf of the Respondent:
  • The Union of India submitted that videography would help in the investigation and was being successfully used in other countries.
  • They also pointed out that new technological devices for evidence collection are the order of the day, and referred to the Field Officers’ Handbook by the Narcotics Control Bureau.
  • They also expressed concerns about the practical implementation of videography, including the cost, storage of data, and the admissibility of evidence.
• Arguments on behalf of the Amicus Curiae:
  • The amicus curiae argued that if the electronic evidence was relevant and produced by a person who was not in custody of the device from which the electronic document was generated, the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act should not be mandatory.
  • They submitted that Section 65B of the Evidence Act was a procedural provision to prove relevant admissible evidence and was intended to supplement the law on the point by declaring that any information in an electronic record, covered by the said provision, was to be deemed to be a document and admissible in any proceedings without further proof of the original.
  • They also argued that this provision could not be read in derogation of the existing law on admissibility of electronic evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether videography of the scene of crime or scene of recovery during investigation should be necessary to inspire confidence in the evidence collected.
2. Whether the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence, especially when the person producing the evidence is not in possession of the device from which the document was generated.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court made the following observations and decisions:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh [1985 (Supp) SCC 611]*: The Court cited this case with approval, emphasizing that electronic evidence is admissible subject to safeguards.
• R. v. Maqsud Ali [(1965) 2 All ER 464] and R. v. Robson [(1972) 2 ALL ER 699]*: These English judgments were cited with approval to support the idea that new techniques and devices should be used in evidence, provided the accuracy of the recording can be proved.
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others [(2014) 10 SCC 473]*: The Court clarified that while this case held that a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was mandatory for secondary electronic evidence, primary electronic evidence is not covered under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including:

The court emphasized the need to adopt modern technology in investigations, while also ensuring that the legal procedures do not hinder the admissibility of authentic and relevant evidence. The Court also recognized the importance of procedural flexibility to ensure that justice is not denied due to technicalities.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• The Court recognized that electronic evidence is essential in modern investigations.
• The Court noted that while Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides a procedure for admissibility, it should not be interpreted to exclude relevant evidence.
• The Court clarified that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not mandatory for a party who is not in control of the device.
• The Court held that procedural requirements can be relaxed in the interest of justice.
• The Court emphasized the need to balance the use of technology with the principles of fairness and justice.

The Court observed, “Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be held to be a complete code on the subject.” It further stated, “The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act 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.” Finally, the Court clarified, “The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies.”

Key Takeaways

• The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is not always mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
• If the person producing the electronic evidence is not in control of the device, the court can relax the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act in the interest of justice.
• Videography of crime scenes is beneficial but not mandatory. The court directed the formation of a Committee of Experts (COE) to prepare a road-map for its use.
• The judgment balances the need for technological advancements in investigations with the principles of fairness and justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the constitution of a Committee of Experts (COE) to facilitate and prepare a road-map for the use of videography in crime scenes and to propose a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is not always mandatory, especially when the electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of the device from which the document is produced. This clarifies the position of law and relaxes the strict procedural requirements of Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 in the interest of justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh clarifies the admissibility of electronic evidence and the use of videography in crime scene investigations. The court held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is not always mandatory, especially when the electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of the device. This ruling ensures that authentic and relevant electronic evidence is not excluded due to technicalities, thus promoting justice. The court also acknowledged the benefits of videography in investigations, directing the formation of a committee to prepare a road-map for its implementation.