Section 65B Certificate under Evidence Act is Compulsory for Admission of Electronic evidence : Case Law

Certificate Under Section 65B(4) Evidence Act Is Compulsory for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Three Judge Bench of SC - 14 July 2020

Case Law : Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571  , decided on 14.07.2020

The Indian Supreme Court has held in the above case that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of an electronic record. The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman further held that, in a fact-circumstance where the requisite certificate has been applied for from the person or the authority concerned, and the person or authority either refuses to give such certificate or does not reply to such demand, the party asking for such certificate can apply to the Court for its production under the provisions aforementioned of the Evidence Act, CPC or CrPC.

The bench has also clarified that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. The court said that the judgment in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473 need not be revisited, subject to the above clarifications.

"Is requirement of certificate U/s 65-B(4) Evidence Act mandatory for production of electronic evidence?" before the three judge bench of SC

Earlier, a two-Judge Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha had referred the question in view of the conflict between Shafhi Mohammad Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh SLP (Crl.)No.2302 of 2017 and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473. It was held in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh that, a party who is not in possession of a device from which the electronic document is produced, cannot be required to produce a certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act. In that case, the bench was considering the issue of whether videography of the scene of crime or scene of recovery during the investigation should be necessary to inspire confidence in the evidence collected. In Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer , it was observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.

 

Application Can Be Made To Court When Requisite Person Refuses To Issue Such Certificate

The court observed that the major premise of Shafhi Mohammad (supra) that such certificate cannot be secured by persons who are not in possession of an electronic device is wholly incorrect. An application can always be made to a Judge for the production of such a certificate from the requisite person under Section 65B(4) in cases in which such person.

In a fact-circumstance where the requisite certificate has been applied for from the person or the authority concerned, and the person or authority either refuses to give such certificate or does not reply to such demand, the party asking for such certificate can apply to the Court for its production under the provisions aforementioned of the Evidence Act, CPC or CrPC. Once such application is made to the Court, and the Court then orders or directs that the requisite certificate be produced by a person to whom it sends a summons to produce such certificate, the party asking for the certificate has done all that he can possibly do to obtain the requisite certificate.

In Anvar P.V. (supra), it was observed that such a certificate must accompany the electronic record when the same is produced in evidence. In this regard, the Court clarified thus:

"We may only add that this is so in cases where such certificate could be procured by the person seeking to rely upon an electronic record. However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons. This, the trial Judge ought to do when the electronic record is produced in evidence before him without the requisite certificate in the circumstances aforementioned. This is, of course, subject to discretion being exercised in civil cases in accordance with law, and in accordance with the requirements of justice on the facts of each case. When it comes to criminal trials, it is important to keep in mind the general principle that the accused must be supplied all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before commencement of the trial, under the relevant sections of the CrPC. "

 Sec. 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied 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, the party asking for such a certificate can apply to the Court for its production under the provisions aforementioned of the Evidence Act, CPC or CrPC.

Conclusion : Section 65B(4) stands compulsory for admission of Electronic evidence 

Case Laws for CCTV as Best Evidence

CCTV Footage- Primary Evidence- 

CCTV footage directly & immediately stored in hard drive of computer is original media, self generated & created without human intervention- Not secondary evidence & does not require certification u/s 65B of Evidence Act. Kishan Tripathi v. State, Crl.A.108/13, 12.2.16 DHC

-—-–—–-—––—-–—

: Procedure to be followed by Magistrate when CCTV footage and video recordings is produced by police at the time of filing of chargesheet?

           During the hearing of the case, we noticed that the trial Court had not played the DVR (MO-2) and seen the CCTV footages in the presence of the accused. In this regard we propose to dispel misgivings, if any, in the mind of trial Judges about their power to view such evidences. There will be instances where, by the time the case comes up for trial in one court, the electronic record would have had a natural death for want of proper storage facilities in the Court property room. To obviate these difficulties, we direct that, on a petition filed by the prosecution, the Judicial Magistrate, who receives the electronic record, may himself view it and take a back up, without disturbing the integrity of the source, in a CD or Pendrive or any other gadget, by drawing proceedings. The back up can be kept in safe custody by wrapping it in anti static cover and should be sent to the Sessions Court at the time of committal. The present generation of Magistrates are computer savvy and they only require legal sanction for taking a back up. They can avail the service of an expert to assist them in their endeavour. Recently the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/1345/2015 : 2015 (12) Scale 597, has held that CD is a 'document' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, MANU/SC/0277/1975 : (1976) 2 SCC 17, the Supreme Court has held that tape records of speeches are 'documents' as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This Judgment has been relied upon in Shamsher Singh Verma's case (cited supra). Therefore, we hold that articles like Memory Card, Hard Disc, CD, Pen-drive, etc., containing relevant data in electronic form are 'documents' as defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, albeit, marking them as material objects. After all, nomenclature cannot have the effect of altering the characteristics of an object. The words 'proved' and 'disproved' in section 3 of the Evidence Act have the following common denominator;

    "A fact is said to be proved/disproved when, after considering the matters before it............ "

    (emphasis supplied)

Without viewing the CCTV footage, how can any Court, "consider the matter before it " to conclude that a fact has been 'proved' or 'disproved' ? That apart, Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states,

    "Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court."

    (emphasis supplied).

This does not mean that, if a secondary evidence of a document is admitted lawfully, the Court is denuded of the power to inspect it. Such an inference will lead to absurdity. Therefore, we hold that a Court has the power to view CCTV footage and video recordings, be it primary or legally admissible secondary evidence, in the presence of the accused for satisfying itself as to whether the individual seen in the footage is the accused in the dock. The trial Court should also specifically put questions to the accused when he is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about his overt acts appearing in the footage and record his answers.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated:     27.2.2016.

: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated:      27-1-2016

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUDHAKAR and

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.PRAKASH

Referred Trial No.1 of 2015

Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2015

K. Ramajayam @ Appu Appellant/Accused

Vs.

The Inspector of Police,

-—–—-—–—–—

SC: Computer Output not admissible without Compliance of 65B,EA

In the judgment of ANVAR P.V. VERSUS, P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS, in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4226 OF 2012 decided on Sept., 18, 2014, 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 Court 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 data in CD/DVD/Pen Drive are not admissible without a certificate u/s 65 B(4) of  Evidence Act. It has  been clarified that in case of computer output without such a certificate, neither  there cannot be  oral evidence to prove such a electronic evidence the output in electronic media  nor the opinion of the expert under section 45A Evidence Act could be resorted to prove the genuineness

-—–-–—-–—

Fact discovered - what constitutes - Fact means some concrete or material fact to which information directly relates - Information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact & must relate distinctly to the fact discovered -

2010 ALL SCR (OCC) 146 -

Erabhadrappa V/s. State of Karnataka 

------------------------------------------------

Electronic Evidence Case Law: CCTV & 65B Certificate 

Rajesh Dhannalal Daware Vs. State of Maharashtra {Bombay High Court, 5 May 2016}

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B - Footage of CCTV Camera - Under S. 65B(4) if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement; (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record; (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and (e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.