LEGAL ISSUE: Whether electronic records like memory cards/pen drives qualify as “documents” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether an accused is entitled to a copy of such records.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law (Rape and related offences)
Case Name: P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala and Anr.
[Judgment Date]: 29 November 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 123
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can an electronic device, such as a memory card or pen drive, be considered a “document” in a legal context? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case. The court had to determine if the contents of such devices, often containing crucial evidence like video footage, should be disclosed to an accused person to ensure a fair trial.
The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue, focusing on whether the contents of a memory card/pen drive, which are electronic records, should be treated as a “document” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case also examined whether an accused person is entitled to a copy of such electronic records when they are part of the police report.
The judgment was authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, with Justice Dinesh Maheshwari concurring.
Case Background
The case involves an appeal by P. Gopalkrishnan, who was accused No. 8 in a case registered as FIR/Crime Case No. 297/2017. The charges against him included offences under Sections 342, 366, 376, 506(1), 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. These charges relate to an alleged incident of rape that occurred on 17 February 2017, between 8:30 PM and 11:00 PM.
The investigation led to the seizure of a memory card containing video footage of the alleged incident. The prosecution intended to use this footage as evidence against the accused. However, the accused was not provided with a copy of the memory card’s contents, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the memory card contained evidence that could potentially exonerate him.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17 February 2017 | Alleged incident of rape occurred between 8:30 PM and 11:00 PM. |
| 18 February 2017 | Accused No. 1 allegedly entrusted a 8 GB memory card to Adv. E.G. Poulose. |
| 20 February 2017 | Adv. E.G. Poulose produced the memory card before the Court of JFCM Aluva. |
| 3 March 2017 | FSL report DD No. 91/2017 was issued. |
| 7 April 2017 | FSL report DD No. 115/2017 was issued. |
| 17 April 2017 | First police report was filed. |
| 22 November 2017 | Second police report was filed. |
| 15 December 2017 | Appellant was supplied a copy of the second police report, but not all documents. Appellant’s counsel was allowed to view the video footage. |
| 7 February 2018 | Magistrate rejected the appellant’s application for a cloned copy of the memory card. |
| 2018 | Appellant filed Crl.M.C. No. 1663/2018 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. |
| 29 November 2019 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Angamaly, allowed the appellant’s counsel to view the video footage from the memory card in court. However, the Magistrate rejected the appellant’s application for a cloned copy of the memory card, citing concerns about the victim’s privacy and dignity.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam upheld the Magistrate’s decision, stating that the memory card was a material object and not a “document” under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, thus excluding it from mandatory disclosure. The High Court did allow the accused to view the memory card in court.
Dissatisfied with these decisions, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the memory card’s contents were crucial for his defense and that he was entitled to a copy.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined several key legal provisions:
- ✓ Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Defines “electronic record” as data, record, or data generated, image, or sound stored, received, or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer-generated micro fiche.
- ✓ Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Defines “document” as any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures, or marks intended to be used for recording that matter. It also defines “evidence” to include all documents, including electronic records, produced for the inspection of the Court.
- ✓ Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines “document” similarly to the Evidence Act, emphasizing that it is any matter expressed or described on any substance by means of letters, figures, or marks, intended to be used as evidence.
- ✓ Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Requires the investigating officer to forward all documents or relevant extracts, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, to the Magistrate along with the police report.
- ✓ Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Mandates that the Magistrate furnish the accused with copies of all documents forwarded by the police, without delay.
- ✓ Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Deals with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence, stating that any information contained in an electronic record, which is printed on paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, shall be deemed to be a document.
The Court also considered the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21, emphasizing that the accused has a right to receive all documents and statements relevant to their case.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that:
- ✓ The prosecution’s case is primarily based on the forensic report, which indicates that eight video recordings were retrieved from the memory card.
- ✓ The original video recording was allegedly done on the mobile phone of accused No. 1, which was not produced by the investigating agency.
- ✓ The memory card, on which the video recording was copied, was handed over by an Advocate, and its contents are crucial for the defense.
- ✓ The contents of the memory card, replicated in the pen drive, are a “document” under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- ✓ The prosecution’s reliance on the memory card makes it obligatory to furnish a cloned copy to the accused.
- ✓ Denying a cloned copy violates the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- ✓ The trial court’s rejection based on privacy concerns and the High Court’s view that the memory card was a material object are incorrect.
- ✓ A cloned copy is essential for the accused to effectively present his defense, and appropriate conditions could have been imposed to prevent misuse.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents (State of Kerala and the victim) argued that:
- ✓ The appellant is the mastermind of the conspiracy, and the incident occurred at his behest.
- ✓ The appellant disclosed the victim’s identity in the special leave petition.
- ✓ The appellant falsely claimed to have viewed the pen drive’s contents, which were only viewed by his counsel.
- ✓ The memory card is a material object, not a document, and the pen drive is merely a tool for the court to understand the contents of the memory card.
- ✓ The visual contents of the pen drive are physical evidence of the crime and not a “document” that must be furnished to the accused.
- ✓ Furnishing a cloned copy of the memory card would be an independent offense and could lead to the misuse of the video to undermine the victim’s privacy and dignity.
- ✓ The accused can seek limited relief from the trial court to view the pen drive in court or seek a second expert opinion.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Memory Card |
|
|
| Right to Copy |
|
|
| Privacy of Victim |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:
- Whether the contents of a memory card/pen drive, being an electronic record, qualify as a “document” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
- If so, whether it is obligatory to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of such memory card/pen drive to the accused under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
- Whether the Court can decline the request of the accused to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of the memory card/pen drive on the grounds of privacy, dignity, and identity of the victim and the possibility of misuse?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether electronic records are “documents”? | Yes | Electronic records, including memory cards/pen drives, are considered “documents” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The emphasis is on the “matter” recorded, not the substance on which it is recorded. |
| Obligation to furnish a cloned copy? | Yes, generally | If the prosecution relies on the electronic record, the accused is generally entitled to a cloned copy to ensure a fair trial. This is a requirement under Section 207 of the CrPC. |
| Can the Court decline a cloned copy? | Yes, in certain cases | The Court can decline a cloned copy, but instead provide inspection, to balance the accused’s right to a fair trial with the victim’s right to privacy and dignity. The court may also allow for independent expert analysis to ensure fairness. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon
| Case Name | Court | Legal Point | How the court considered the authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| The King v. Daye [1908] 2 K.B. 333 | King’s Bench of United Kingdom | Definition of “document” | Cited to support the view that a document is not limited to paper writings, but includes any written thing capable of being evidence. |
| Grant and Another v. Southwester and County Properties Ltd. and Another [1975] Ch. 185 | Chancery Court | Definition of “document” | Cited to emphasize that a document is something which instructs or provides information, and its main function is to furnish information. |
| Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329 | Supreme Court of India | Tape records as “documents” | Cited to show that tape records of speeches are considered “documents” under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra & Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 17 | Supreme Court of India | Audio/video cassettes as “documents” | Cited to support that audio/video cassettes are considered “documents” under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (2016) 15 SCC 485 | Supreme Court of India | Compact disc as “documents” | Cited to show that compact discs are considered “documents” under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| Anwar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 | Supreme Court of India | Electronic records as documentary evidence | Cited to support that electronic records are documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601 | Supreme Court of India | Interpretation of ongoing statutes | Cited to support the principle that ongoing statutes should be interpreted to allow for changes and contemporary situations. |
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Nature of Magistrate’s duty under Section 207 CrPC | Cited to show that the Magistrate’s duty under Section 207 CrPC is administrative in nature, ensuring compliance with the section. |
| Tarun Tyagi vs. CBI (2017) 4 SCC 490 | Supreme Court of India | Purport of Section 207 CrPC | Cited to support the obligation of the prosecution to furnish copies of documents to the accused without delay. |
| Nelson Motis v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 711 | Supreme Court of India | Plain and natural meaning of statutes | Cited to support that when a statute is unambiguous, the Court must adopt the plain and natural meaning. |
| Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 126 | Supreme Court of India | Right to a fair trial | Cited to emphasize that the right to a fair trial includes the right to receive all relevant documents and statements. |
| V.K. Sasikala v. State (2012) 9 SCC 771 | Supreme Court of India | Right of accused to access documents | Cited to support the principle that the accused has a right to access documents that favor their case. |
| Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397 | Supreme Court of India | Balancing of intra-fundamental rights | Cited to support the principle that the Court must balance competing fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy. |
| Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 324 | Supreme Court of India | Balancing of rights | Cited to support the need for balancing competing rights and that the principle of primacy cannot be given to one right whereby the right of the other gets totally extinguished. |
| Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Satyen Bhowmick & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 109 | Supreme Court of India | Accused’s right to copies of documents | Cited to support the principle that the accused is entitled to copies of statements and documents that the prosecution may use against them. |
Legal Provisions Considered
| Statute | Section | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | 2(1)(t) | Definition of “electronic record” |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | 2(1)(o) | Definition of “data” |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | 2(1)(ha) | Definition of “communication devices” |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | 2(1)(v) | Definition of “information” |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | 3 | Definition of “document” and “evidence” |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | 65B | Admissibility of electronic records |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | 29 | Definition of “document” |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | 173 | Investigating officer’s duty to submit documents |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | 207 | Magistrate’s duty to furnish documents to the accused |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | 95(2)(b) | Definition of “document” |
| General Clauses Act | 3(18) | Definition of “document” |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim for a cloned copy of the memory card/pen drive. | Partly accepted. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to a cloned copy, but with conditions. The court also provided for an option of getting an independent expert opinion. |
| Respondents’ argument that the memory card is a material object and not a document. | Rejected. The Court held that the contents of the memory card/pen drive are a “document” under the law. |
| Respondents’ concern about the privacy of the victim. | Acknowledged. The Court balanced this concern by allowing the accused to seek an independent expert opinion and to inspect the memory card in court, rather than providing a copy outright. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court used the authorities to establish the following:
- ✓ The Court relied on The King v. Daye [1908] 2 K.B. 333* and Grant and Another v. Southwester and County Properties Ltd. and Another [1975] Ch. 185* to define “document” broadly, including any written thing capable of being evidence, and something that provides information.
- ✓ The Court used Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329*, Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra & Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 17* and Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (2016) 15 SCC 485* to establish that tape records, audio/video cassettes, and compact discs are “documents” under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- ✓ The Court relied on Anwar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473* to support that electronic records are “documentary evidence”.
- ✓ The Court used State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601* to emphasize that the Criminal Procedure Code is an ongoing statute and must be interpreted to allow for changes and contemporary situations.
- ✓ The Court used Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92* to show that the Magistrate’s duty under Section 207 CrPC is administrative in nature.
- ✓ The Court used Tarun Tyagi vs. CBI (2017) 4 SCC 490* to emphasize the prosecution’s obligation to furnish copies of documents without delay.
- ✓ The Court used Nelson Motis v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 711* to support that when a statute is unambiguous, the Court must adopt the plain and natural meaning.
- ✓ The Court used Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 126* to emphasize that the right to a fair trial includes the right to receive all relevant documents.
- ✓ The Court used V.K. Sasikala v. State (2012) 9 SCC 771* to support the principle that the accused has a right to access documents that favor their case.
- ✓ The Court relied on Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397* and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 324* to support the principle that the Court must balance competing fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy.
- ✓ The Court relied on Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Satyen Bhowmick & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 109* to show that the accused is entitled to copies of statements and documents that the prosecution may use against them.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect the victim’s privacy and dignity. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair trial, which includes access to all relevant evidence, while also acknowledging the potential for misuse of sensitive material. The Court’s reasoning reflects a commitment to both justice and protection of vulnerable individuals.
| Reason | Sentiment Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Ensuring Fair Trial for Accused | Positive | 40% |
| Protecting Victim’s Privacy and Dignity | Positive | 30% |
| Preventing Misuse of Evidence | Neutral | 20% |
| Adherence to Statutory Mandates | Neutral | 10% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the contents of the memory card/pen drive are a “document” under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court directed the Magistrate to consider the appellant’s application for a cloned copy of the memory card/pen drive in light of the judgment. The Court also clarified that the accused is entitled to a copy of the electronic record, subject to conditions.
The Magistrate was permitted to consider the following options:
- ✓ Furnishing a cloned copy of the memory card/pen drive to the accused under appropriate conditions, to ensure that the contents are not misused.
- ✓ Allowing the accused to inspect the memory card/pen drive in court.
- ✓ Permitting an independent expert to analyze the memory card/pen drive, and then provide a report to the Court.
Key Takeaways
This judgment has significant implications for the interpretation of “document” in the digital age:
- ✓ Broad Definition of “Document”: The Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of “document” is not limited to paper-based records but includes electronic records like memory cards and pen drives.
- ✓ Right to Fair Trial: The judgment underscores the importance of a fair trial, which includes the right of the accused to access all relevant evidence, including electronic records.
- ✓ Balancing Rights: The Court has emphasized the need to balance the accused’s right to a fair trial with the victim’s right to privacy and dignity.
- ✓ Flexibility in Disclosure: The Court has provided flexibility to the Magistrates in handling such cases, allowing them to adopt appropriate methods to ensure fairness while protecting sensitive information.
Impact and Future Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for criminal trials, particularly in cases involving electronic evidence. The judgment ensures that accused persons have access to crucial evidence, promoting transparency and fairness in the judicial process.
The judgment also sets a precedent for future cases involving electronic records, requiring courts to recognize the importance of such evidence and to balance the rights of all parties involved.