Professional Documents
Culture Documents
USEFUL
ARTICLE
ON
&
ADMISSIBILITY
A P RANDHIR
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
1. INTRODUCTION
Presumptions
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
the Evidence Act. Thus the Indian Evidence Act prescribes clear legal
rules that are expected to guide the Judge objectively to decide the
relevancy and admissibility of evidence and rule out any unpredictability
associated with subjective assessment.
ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 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not been replaced by the word “Electronic documents or content of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.
• 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“Document or content of documents” have not been replaced by the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
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
JUDGMENT COLLECTION
1. State of Maharashtra V. Dr. Praful Desai3,
The police had recorded evidence by video conferencing. With the
enactment of Information Technology Act, 2000, the law of evidence was
amended to incorporate several provisions governing admissibility and
proof of the electronic evidence.
2. G. shyamlal Rajini V. M.S. Tamizhnathan4.
The audio C.D. was marked by the court as an exhibit with the condition
that when it was displayed, an opportunity would be given to the wife for
cross examining the husband.
5MANU/SC/0040/ 2015
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
authenticity for the translation. Source and authenticity are the two key
factors for electronic evidence.
5. Ankur Chawla vs. CBI6
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.
7
6.Abdul Rahaman Kunji vs. The State of West Bengal
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.
7. Jagdeo Singh vs.The State and Ors. 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
6MANU/DE/2923/ 2014
7MANU/WB/0828/ 2014
8MANU/DE/0376/ 2015
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
65B Evidence Act is inadmissible and cannot be looked into by the court
for any purpose whatsoever.
TAPE RECORDER
10. Chandrakant R. Mehta vs. The State 11 & [Ram Singh and ors. Vs.
Ram Singh12
12AIR 1986 SC 3
18 MANU/DE/0376/2015
providing company can be led into evidence through a witness who can
identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak to the
facts based on his personal knowledge.”
PROOF OF CONTENTS OF C.D.
The person intending to prove C.D. is required to prove whether the
disputed C.D. was prepared by a combination of a computer operating
therein or different computer operating in succession over that period or
of different combination of computers. It is not necessary to examine the
computer expert for the proof of C.D. in addition to the compliance of
provisions of section 65B.
20. Ankur Chawla Vs. CBI 21
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.
It is interesting to see the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in AIR 2010 SC 965 In order to prove the charge of corrupt
practice, the petitioner has filed one Video CD and the court found that
new techniques and devices are the order of the day . A first hand
information about an event can be gathered and in a given situation may
prove to be a crucial piece of evidence by Audio and videotape
technology. At the same time, such evidence has to be received with
caution as with fast development in the electronic techniques, they are
more susceptible to tampering and alterations by transcription, excision,
21 MANU/DE/2923/2014.
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
etc. which may be difficult to detect and it emphasized that to rule out the
possibility of any kind of tampering with the tape, the standard of proof
about its authenticity and accuracy has to be more stringent as
compared to other documentary evidence. When the accuracy of the
recording has not been proved by the petitioner by examining a
competent witness, alleged maker of Video CD. The Video CD therefore,
is not admissible in evidence.
22. JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA22
The speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana
disqualified a member for defection. When hearing the matter, the
Supreme Court considered the digital evidence in the form of interview
transcripts from the Zee News television channel, the Aaj Tak television
channel and the Haryana News of Punjab Today television channel. The
court determined that the electronic evidence placed on record was
admissible and upheld the reliance placed by the speaker on the
recorded interview when reaching the conclusion that the voices
recorded on the CD were those of the persons taking action. The
Supreme Court found no infirmity in the speaker's reliance on the digital
evidence and the conclusions reached by him. The comments in this
case indicate a trend emerging in Indian courts: judges are beginning to
recognize and appreciate the importance of digital evidence in legal
proceedings.
22. K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy23
the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the point of electronic evidence
such as – the amended definition in Section 3 of Evidence Act 1872 read
with the definition of electronic record in Section 2 clause F of the
22(2006) 11 SCC 1)
8. After recording the evidence, the same is to be sent to the witness and
his signature is to be obtained in the presence of a Notary Public and
thereafter it forms part of the record of the suit proceedings.
9. The visual is to be recorded and the record would be at both ends.
The witness also is to be alone at the time of visual conference and
notary is to certificate to this effect.
10. The learned Judge may also impose such other conditions as are
necessary in a given set of facts.
11. The expenses and the arrangements are to be borne by the applicant
who wants this facility.
26. Suvarana Musale vs Rahul Musale 2015 (2) Mh.L.J. 801
in view of section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act it was held that
recording of evidence with help of electronic method and techniques is
acknowledged and recognized in judicial system. Petitioner wife was
working in U.S. and has a minor daughter aged 6 yrs , traveling to India
for being present physically was expensive and she may face difficulty in
getting leave and hurdles in obtaining VISA . An application for recording
evidence through video conferencing was allowed.
PROOF OF THE DIGITAL SIGNATURE OF A PERSON
Section 67A of the Indian Evidence Act provides that except in the case
of a secure digital signature, if the digital signature of any subscriber is
alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact that such
digital signature is the digital signature of the subscriber must be proved.
It is necessary to prove it in the manner of proof of electronic record.
Section 65B will be applicable.
27. Bodala Murali Krishna Vs. Smt. Bodala Prathima 2007 (2) ALD 72
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
The court held that, “…the amendments carried to the Evidence Act by
introduction of Sections 65A and 65B are in relation to the electronic
record. Sections 67A and 73A were introduced as regards proof and
verification of digital signatures. As regards presumption to be drawn
about such records, Sections 85A, 85B, 85C, 88A and 90A were added.
These provisions are referred only to demonstrate that the emphasis, at
present, is to recognize the electronic records and digital signatures, as
admissible pieces of evidence.”
SUPPLYING COPY OF ELECTRONIC RECORD :
28. Fatima Riswana Vs. State and others, AIR 2005 SC 712
The prosecution was relating to exploitation of certain men and women
for the purpose of making pornographic photos and videos in various
acts of sexual intercourse and thereafter selling them to foreign
websites. The case was allotted to fast track court presided over by a
lady judge. The accused applied for copies of the CDs. The trial court
rejected that prayer. The High Court, also rejected such prayer by
observing that if their copies are provided, they can be copied further
and put into circulation. However, the High Court allowed viewing of the
CDs in the chamber of the judge. It was contended on behalf of the
accused that it may cause embarrassment to the lady judge. Hence, the
matter was directed to be transferred to the court of a male judge.
However, the concern of the victim side was not considered. The apex
court observed that a judicial officer be it a female or male is expected to
face this challenge when call of duty required it. Hence that order was
set aside.
29. State of Punjab and others Vs. M/s. AmritsarBeverages Ltd. and
others, AIR 2006 SC 2820
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
The section 14(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act provided for
inspection of books, documents and accounts and their seizure. The
officer seizing the book, account, register or document shall forthwith
grant a receipt to a receipt, retaining a copy, affixing signature and seal
of the officer on the document and return of the books to the dealer. But,
the seized record was cash book, ledger and other registers maintained
in a hard disk. Hence, it was not possible to put signature and seal of the
official on the seized documents. However, a copy was taken from the
hard disk and hard disk was returned.
ALLOWING USE OF NETWORK FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSE :
30.Sanjay Kumar Kedia Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and Another,
2008(2) SCC 294
The appellant was arrested for the offences under sections 24 and 29 of
the NDPS Act, on the allegations was that he had used the network
facilities provided by his companies for arranging the supply of a banned
psychotropic substances online. It was claimed that the companies were
mere network service providers and there were protected under section
79 of the Information Technology Act from any prosecution. On the basis
of the IP address of various websites which used the same IP address of
the websites of the accused it was revealed that the accused was
supplying drugs by taking online orders. The court found that there was
prima facie material showing that the companies of the accused were not
acting merely as a network service provider but where actually running
Internet pharmacy and dealing with the prescription drugs like
Phentermine and Butalbital.
OPINION OF EXAMINER OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
As it is already laid down, provision under section 45A to consider
opinion given by an examiner of electronic evidence regarding any
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
condition precedent for the Delhi Court to exercise jurisdiction. The High
Court further held that all issues relating to the custody of child ought to
be agitated and decided by the Court in America not only because that
Court had already passed an order to that effect in favour of the father,
but also because all the three parties namely, the parents of the minor
and the minor himself were American citizens. The High Court buttressed
its decision on the principle of comity of courts and certain observations
made by this Court in some of the decided cases to which we shall
presently refer. Based on the E-mails communication and other
evidences, the court has allowed the Civil Appeal and order dated 8th
March, 2010 passed by the High Court hereby set aside. Consequently,
proceedings in G.P. No. 361/2001 filed by the Appellant shall go on and
be disposed of on the merits as expeditiously as possible. And the
Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2011, (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10362 of
2010) is dismissed.
35. Delhi Serial Blasts Case,
The Delhi court has issued notice to jail authorities in Gujarat and
Maharashtra where the Delhi serial bombing accused are lodged so that
court proceedings could be conducted through video-conferencing to
avoid delay in shifting them27.
Taking into consideration the security lapses which occur when
under trials have to be shunned between the court and jail during case
hearings, courts have formulated the perfect means of taking case of any
faults which may occur during this process. Thus, linking of courts
through video-conferencing is started with the purpose of saving time
and money and also to facilitate the security of prisoners. The video
linkage systems will drastically bring down the number of police
personnel deployed on escort duty. The surplus staff could be used for
other duties. The prospects of escape during transportation to and from
the courts could be bleak as the number of prisoners would be
manageable28.
36.Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v State of
Maharashtra & Ors29
The Hon’ble Supreme Court appreciated the electronic evidence,
whether in the form of CCTV footage, mobile devices, memory cards,
data storage devices, intercepted communications over VoIP, IP
Addresses, etc. while delivering the judgment.
37. Gajraj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, MANU/SC/1104/2011
First Information Report bearing No. 297 of 2005 was registered at
Police Station Krishna Nagar for offences punishable under Sections
302, 452 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code on 7.1.2006. On 14.12.2007,
an additional charge under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code was
also framed against the accused- Appellant. The court dismissed the
appeal taking in consideration the IMEI number of the mobile of the
deceased, Call records and other relevant evidences.
38. Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs. Home Secretary, Union of India &
Ors., MANU/SC/0131/2012
Electronic evidence considered in this case was CCTV footage and
recording in the CDs along with other evidences.
39. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau Of
Investigation & Anr., MANU/SC/0329/2013
29(2012) 9 SCC 1
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah has filed the present Writ Petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India owing to the filing of fresh FIR by
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and charge sheet arraying him
as an accused in view of the directions given by this Court to the Police
Authorities of the Gujarat State to handover the case relating to the
death of Tulsiram Prajapati-a material witness to the killings of
Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi to the CBI in Narmada Bai v. State of
Gujarat and Ors. The mobile call details pertaining to the case
important piece of evidence not only against accused Shri Amit Shah but
other police officers of Gujarat and Rajasthan, who worked at his behest
to cover up the fake encounter that killed Tulsiram Prajapati, yet the
court allowed the writ petition of the accused considering the other
factors.
40. Sanjay Dutt (A-117) Vs. State of Maharashtra through CBI (STF),
Bombay, [Alongwith Criminal Appeal Nos. 1102 and 1687 of 2007]
AND The State of Maharashtra,through CBI Vs. Ajai Yash Prakash
Marwah (A-120) [Alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 2011] AND
Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53) Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro.
Superintendent of Police, CBI (STF), Bombay [Alongwith Criminal
Appeal No. 1001 of 2007] AND The State of Maharashtra, through
CBI (STF), Bombay Vs. Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53)
MANU/SC/0264/2013
The appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2006 and 31.07.2007 respectively
by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case,
Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No. 1/1993. The appeals made by all the
accused have been dismissed by the court, in light of the call details
and other oral & documentary evidences.
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
High Court confirmed the conviction of the Appellants Under Section 302
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on each of them.
Emphasizing on the production of CCTV footage, call details, SIM
cards, etc as the best evidence, the court allowed the appeal so made
since the said evidences were not presented by the prosecution.
47. Uday Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar,MANU/SC/0756/2015
These appeals are against a common judgment and order dated
04.03.2009 passed by the Patna High Court in Death Reference Case
No. 4/2007 and Death Reference Case No. 12/2008 along with the
criminal appeals filed by the accused persons against the judgment and
order of the trial court. The trial court convicted the accused persons and
awarded death sentence, which was referred before the High Court for
confirmation. The High Court after hearing the parties set aside the
judgments and orders of conviction passed by the trial court against the
accused persons. Hence, these appeals have been filed by the
informant/complainant before this Court. Not considering the electronic
and other evidences against the accused, the appeals have been
dismissed by the court.
48.Vinod Kumar Subbiah Vs. Saraswathi Palaniappan,
MANU/SC/0492/2015
These Appeals assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai, delivered on
13.3.2013, setting aside the judgment dated 25.8.2011 of the Trial Court.
The Impugned judgment dismissed the divorce petition filed by the
Appellant. The appeal is allowed by the court, thereby considering the
evidences i.e. voice mails and emails. However, these evidences was
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
respondent No. 2, who was the owner at the time of accident of the
offending vehicle inasmuch as there had been no insurance coverage for
the said vehicle on the day of the accident i.e. 21.08.2008. According to
them, the insurance policy was opened by them w.e.f. 25.08.2008 to be
alive till 24.08.2009. As the accident had taken place on 21.08.2008, by
dint of the said policy, the respondent No. 2, the owner of the offending
vehicle could not have enjoyed indemnity.
While scrutinizing the electronic records and other evidences, the court
is of the view that the court is unable to decide the case due to the
absence of proper facts and documents and hence the petition shall be
reheard by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.
65. B.P. Gautam Vs. State of Sikkim, MANU/SI/0018/2015
The court considered the call details and the photographs during the
trap as the admissible evidences and thus, dismissed the appeal made
by the accused.
66. M. Londhoni Devi Vs. National Investigation Agency,
MANU/GH/0512/2011
The appellant has preferred this appeal against an order passed by the
Special Judge, NLA, Assam, Gauhati in Misc Bail Application No.
17/2011 declining bail to the appellant.The appellant has been in custody
since 18.08.2010 and is accused of offences under Sections 120(B),
121, 121(A)and 122 of the IPC read with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appeal is allowed by
the court disregarding the evidences i.e. the printouts of the
transactions made to the appellant by the UNLF showing her active
membership with UNLF, pointed out by the prosecution.
67.Ramvao Shimray Vs. State of Manipur, MANU/GH/0610/2011
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Four leading citizens of the State of Manipur have filed this Public
Interest Litigation, entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for quashing the Notification No. 1/20/2009-CHA (i) dated
26.04.2010 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur
setting in motion election of one member each from Autonomous District
Councils. The said Notification was purportedly issued under sub-rule (2)
of Rule 15 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils (Election of
Members) Rules, 2009. The petitioners are also praying for quashing the
follow up Notifications issued by Sub-Divisional Officer/Returning Officer
and fixing the schedule of Election. The writ petition has been dismissed
by the court stating that the action of respondents in obtaining the
signature of the Chief Secretary using electronic device i.e. Fax perse
cannot be said as illegal.
68.Shri Bidhi Chand Dhiman Vs. CBI, MANU/GH/0791/2011
These petitions are directed against a common judgment and order
dated passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati in
Special Case No. 3 of 2009 by which charge was framed against the
accused petitioners under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 read with Section 120B,IPC.The appeal (474 of 2011) made by the
second accused has been allowed on the basis of the evidences so
produced i.e. video clip and call details.
69.Shiva Jatan Thakur (Dr.) Vs. Union Of India & Ors,
MANU/GH/0513/2011
With the help of this petition, made under Section 482 of the Code
Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner, who is accused in G.R. Case No. 135/2011, arising out at
Dimapur East Police Station Case No. 73/2011, under Section
500/506/507/509 IPC, read with Section 66A/66E/67A of the Information
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Technology Act, 2000 , has sought to get aside and quashed the First
Information Report, which has given rise to the case aforementioned,
and the Charge-Sheet, which has been submitted on completion of
investigation into the case. The FIR as well as the charge-sheet is
quashed by the court, not considering the electronic evidences produced
such as voice recording, messages, photographs; since the
procedure laid down in chapter IX of IT Act was not followed.
70.Utpal Debbarma and Anr. Vs. State of Tripura,
MANU/GH/07292012
This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 by Sri Utpal Debbarma, the accused petitioner, for granting bail in
connection with G.R. Case No. 280/ 1998 (arising from East Agartala
P.S. Case No. 37/1998), pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. The petitioner has been in
custody since 11.07.2011 and his bail application had been rejected
consecutively by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura,
Agartala, Considering the electronic evidences i.e. Printout copies of
the information stored in some seized SIM cards, pen drives, memory
cards, etc the dealing of the accused petitioner with NLFT was proved
and thereby his bail application was rejected.
71.Oinam Moniton Singha Vs. National Investigating Agency,
MANU/GH/0983/2012
Accused-appellant has filed this appeal, under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, against the orde, passed by the
learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, in Misc. Bail Application
No. 24/2011, in connection with Special NIA Case No. 1/2010, under
Sections 16 /17 /18 /20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
arising out of Noonmati Police Station Case No. 159/2010 registered
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
under Section 120(B) /121 /121(A) /122 of IPC, read with Section 10 /13
of UA(P) Act, whereby the prayer of the accused-appellant, Oinam
Moniton Singha, to allow him to go, on bail, The court, after considering
the evidences brought in light by NIA i.e. emails, details of bank
accounts and electronic media for communication, disposed off the
appeal made by the appellant.
72.Barasha Borah Bordoloi Vs. State of Assam,
MANU/GH/0371/2012
With the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioner who is an accused in Karimganj Police Section Case No. 483
of 2011, under Sections 120B/384/385/389/353 IPC, read with Section
66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2008, has sought to get set
aside and quashed the First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), which
led to the registration of the case afore mentioned. The court overlooked
the evidences so produced by both the parties i.e. records of SMS, in
quashing the impugned FIR and thereby dismissed the petition of
quashing of the FIR.
73 P.V.Anvar Vs P.K Basheer judgement was delivered by the three
member Supreme Court bench consisting of the then CJI, Kurien
Joseph along with Justices R.M. Lodha and Rohinton Fali Nariman
in which it was unambiguously declared as follows:
In this case the question that arose was whether the videography of the
scene of crime captured during investigation as a part of Standard
operating Procedure could be used as evidence. In the process there
was a misunderstanding about how the admissibility has to be proved
and who has to issue a Section 65B certificate.
Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be held to be a
complete code on the subject. In Anvar P.V. (supra), this Court in para
24 clarified that primary evidence of electronic record was not covered
under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. Primary evidence is
the document produced before Court and the expression “document” is
defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to mean any matter expressed
or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks,
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
This person could be the video operator back in the Police control
room to whom the video recordings are deposited by the field personnel
and not necessarily the field personnel himself.
The field personnel may deposit the first container of the electronic
document (which contains is the Original stream of data) like depositing
any hardware or article collected from the crime scene with a certificate.
At best each day when they submit the “Memory Card or Tape”, they
may record the “hash value” of the document.
In some cases because the Police try to demand that the entire
hard disk or the computer has to be seized instead of simply capturing
the piece of document that is an evidence, the holder of the document
may hesitate to deposit the device or participate in the process of
providing the evidence.
New sections 65A and 65B are introduced to the Evidence Act
under the Second Schedule to the IT Act.
Section 65A provides that the contents of electronic records may be
proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B.
EEVIDENCE – CONCEPT & ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
THANK YOU