A

DISSERTATION
ON

Relevancy and Admissibility of E- Records in Criminal

Proceedings in India: Legal Issues and Challenges

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for the award of the degree of

Master of Laws

Under the supervision of: Submitted by:

Dr. Mukesh Kumar Ridhima Rehalia
Associate Professor LLM (UILS)
UILS, Chandigarh University UID: 21MLL1317

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY
GHARUAN, MOHALI, PUNJAB, INDIA-140413

MAY, 2022

I
 DECLARATION

I do hereby declare that the work which is being present in the dissertation entitled,
“Relevancy and Admissibility of E- Records in Criminal Proceedings in India: Legal Issues
and Challenges”, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Laws submitted to UILS, Chandigarh University, Gharuan, Mohali, is an original
piece of research work carried out by during the period from January 2021 to May 2021
under the supervision of Dr. Mukesh Kumar, Associate Professor UILS, Chandigarh
University, Gharuan, Mohali, Punjab, India. The matter embodies in this dissertation has not
been submitted by me for the award of any other degree of any other university/institute.

Student
Name: Ridhima Rehalia
UILS, Chandigarh University,
Gharuan (Mohali)
Punjab

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge.

Supervisor
Name Dr. Mukesh Kumar
UILS, Chandigarh University,
Gharuan (Mohali)
Punjab

II
 CERTIFICATE

The final LLM Dissertation Viva-voce examination of Ms Ridhima Rehalia, UID

21MLL1317 has been held on …………………………. and his/her case is recommended for
the award of Master of Laws in UILS, Chandigarh University, Gharuan, Mohali.

Signature of Examiner(s) Signature of Supervisor

Signature of DRC Members Signature of DRC Chairman

III
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the suggestions & recommendations of the Examiner(s) and DRC
members has been incorporated in the dissertation entitled, “Relevancy and Admissibility of
E- Records in Criminal Proceedings in India: Legal Issues and Challenges”, in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Law and submitted to
Chandigarh University, Gharuan, Mohali.

Supervisor Student
Name Dr. Mukesh Kumar Name Ridhima Rehalia
UILS, UILS,
Chandigarh University, Chandigarh University,
Gharuan, Mohali Gharuan, Mohali

IV
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “Relevancy and Admissibility of E- Records in
Criminal Proceedings in India: Legal Issues and Challenges” has been prepared by Ridhima
Rehalia a student of University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University under my
supervision and guidance. I recommend it for evaluation.

Dr. Mukesh Kumar

Place: (Supervisor)

Date:

V
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I feel proud to acknowledge the able guidance of our esteemed Dr. Mukesh Kumar I
acknowledge with pleasure unparallel infrastructural support that I have received from
------------------------------------ . In fact, this work is the outcome of outstanding support that I
have received from the faculty members of the college. This research work bears testimony to
the active encouragement and guidance of a host of friends and well-wishers. It would never
have been possible to complete this study without an untiring support from my family. I am
greatly indebted to the various writers, jurists and all others from whose writings and work I
have taken help to complete this dissertation.

Ridhima Rehalia

UID-21MLL1317

VI
 Table of Contents

TITLE PG NO.
DECLARATION II
CERTIFICATE III
CERTIFICATE IV
CERTIFICATE V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT VI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IX
LIST OF CASE LAWS XI
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION …..………………………………………………………1
1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1
1.2 What is electronic evidence ?.........................................................................................1
1.3 What is Electronic Record?...........................................................................................2
1.4 Evidence...........................................................................................................................4
1.5 Method Of proof of electronic records.........................................................................5
1.6 Case laws U/S 65 B of the evidence act.........................................................................6
1.7 Other case laws...............................................................................................................8
1.8 Presumptions...................................................................................................................9
Chapter 2: IMPORTANCE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF
FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.............................................11

2.1 Guidelines Of proof......................................................................................................13

2.2 Obligation to prove any claims....................................................................................13
2.3 Electronic evidence in computer related crimes........................................................14
2.4 Wellsprings Of electronic/ digital evidence................................................................16
2.5 Kinds of electronic records as evidence.....................................................................17
2.6 Lawful provision relating to electronic evidence.......................................................18
2.7 Indian evidence act 1872..............................................................................................19
2.7.1 Bankers book evidence act 1872.............................................................................23
2.7.2 Indian penal code,1860...........................................................................................23
2.8 Aspects of electronic evidence.....................................................................................23
2.9 Computerized proof - chaotic and tricky type of proof............................................24
2.10 Simple control/change of advanced proof................................................................25

VII
 2.11 Plausibility of Evidence Dynamics............................................................................25
2.12 Expanding awareness of electronic evidence and the judicial approach in india 26
Chapter 3.........................:HANDLING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION: THE ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN INDIA 32

3.1 The changing nature of crime: the present scenario.................................................32

3.2 Developing importance of electronic evidence: the role of computer forensics......34
3.3 Central principles of electronic/ digital evidence......................................................37
3.4 Examination OF Computer related crimes and handling of electronic evidence. .37
3.5 Treatment of Electronic Evidence and Law Enforcement Agencies.......................44
3.6 Global Standard ISO/IEC 27037:2012 for recognizable proof, assortment,
securing and protection of advanced proof......................................................................45
3.7 The ACPO Good Practice Guide for Computer Based Evidence............................48
3.7.1 Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders: The U.S.
Division of Justice (USDOJ, 2001).................................................................................49
3.7.2 Guidelines on Cyber-Crime Investigation in India...............................................50
3.8 Challenges in handling electronic evidence................................................................50
3.9 An Empirical Study of Cyber Cell in Gurgaon.........................................................51
3.10 Perceptions..................................................................................................................54
3.11 Procurement of Electronic Evidence: Need for Standardization of Process........54
Chapter 4: ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGES
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY................................................................................................56

4.1 Idea OF Admissibility..................................................................................................58

4.2 Principles of admissibility of scientific evidence in courts........................................60
4.3 Admissiblity of electronic evidence.............................................................................62
4.4 Norms Of admissibility: the united states..................................................................63
4.5 Norms Of admissibility: the Indian scenario.............................................................64
4.6 Rules on admissibility of electronically stored information: Lorraine v. Markel
American insurance co.......................................................................................................66
4.7 Conceding Electronic evidence in court: challenges.................................................66
4.8 Legal interventions on admissibility of electronic evidence : a critical analysis.....70
4.9 Challenges in admissibility and the judiciary............................................................83
Chapter 5: STRENGTHENING INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & SUGGESTIONS............86

VIII
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Expansion

AIR All India Record

& And

Anr Another

Crl Criminal

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

Ie. In Essence

LJ Law Journals

LR Law Reports

Ltd Limited

IX
Ors Others

S. Section

Sec. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Records

SLP Special Leave Petition

U/Art Under Article

UOI Union of India

V. Versus

WP Writ Petition

W.R.T With respect to

X
 LIST OF CASES

CASE CITATION PAGE NO.

1. Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi AIR 2005 Cal 11 8, 70.

2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 6, 7, 28.

473.

3. Asst. Gatherer of focal Excise, Prevention 1983 CriLJ 1880. 38

v. Krishnamurthy

4. Bodala Murali Krishna v. Smt. Bodala AIR 2007 AP 43. 72

Prathima

5. CBI v. Ashok Pal Panwar CC No. 02/2013. 83

6. CBI v. Nirmal Singh CNR No. 76

DLCT01-004642-

2015

7. Darshan T S v. State of Karnataka Crl.P. NO. 36

7706/2015

8. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 53

(1993)

9. Gajraj v. State (NCT) of Delhi W.P. (Crl.) No. 27, 74.

1797 of 2010 ·

10. H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 1955 SCR 38

(1)1150.

XI
11. Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 11 SCC 1. 5, 72.

12. Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar 1974 SCR (2) 609. 38.

13. K. Ramajayam @ Appu v. The Inspector of Criminal Appeal 77.

Police: No.110 of 2015.

14. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael CRIMINAL 61

APPEAL NO. 179

OF 2007

15. Kundan Singh v. State CRL.A. 711/2014. 75

16. Laddi v. State of Haryana CRR No. 398 of 19

2013

17. Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance 241 F.R.D. 534 63, 66.

Co (D. Md. 2007).

18. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of CRIMINAL 40

Maharashtra APPEAL

NOS.1899-1900

OF 2011

19. Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan 2015 SCC Online 29, 80.

Raj 8331.

20. Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP CRIMINAL 77.

APPEAL

NO.2003 OF

2012.

XII
21. Suvarana Musale v. Rahul Musale WRIT PETITION 9.

NO. 6514 OF

2014.

22. Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 60.

1850

23. Ram Singh v. Col. Slam Singh 1985 SCR Supl. 39.

(2) 399

24. Selvi v. State of Karnataka 2010(7) SCC 263. 62.

25. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal (2018) 2 SCC 801. 30, 83, 98.

Pradesh

26. Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of  [2015] INSC 827 73.

Haryana

27. Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015) AIR (SC) 8.

1553.

28. Sidharth Jaitly v. State CRL.REV.P. 78.

267/2015.

29. Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. CRIMINAL 38

State (NCT of Delhi) APPEAL NO. 179

OF 2007.

30. Smash Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana 2017 SCC OnLine 78.

SC 259.

XIII
31. Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. v. Essar 2006 (33) PTC 79.

Industries 469 Del.

32. Sri H G Rasika @ Nithin v. State of CRIMINAL 29.

Karnataka PETITION

NO.7282 OF 2017

33. State of Bihar v Sri Radha Krishna (1983) 2 SCR 808. 4.

34. State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515. 7.

35. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. AIR 2003 SC 8.

Desai 2053.

36. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 6, 40, 71, 83.

600.

37. State of Punjab v Amritsar Beverages Ltd Appeal (civil) 72.

3419 of 2006.

38. Subhendu Nath v. State of West Bengal 2019 SCC OnLine 40.

Cal 242.

39. Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2012 SCC OnLine 27.

All 4139.

40. Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji CIVIL APPEAL 26, 73.

Kokate NO.2928 OF

2008.

XIV
41. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation AIR 2003 KANT 8.

v. NRI Film Production Associates (P) Ltd. 148.

42. US v. Park 421 U.S. 658 50.

(1975).

43. US v. Wall 225 F.3d 858 51.

(2000).

44. Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 8 SCC 518. 7.

45. Vinhnee v. American Express Travel 336 B.R. 437 63.

Related Services Company, Inc (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

2005).

46. Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v AIR 1975 SC 5.

Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra 1788 (1).

XV
 CHAPTER 1: ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

1.1 Introduction

Cultural correspondence occurs through the exchange of considerations from the actual world
to the electronic world. The virtual world spins around the utilisation of data and
correspondence mechanical gadgets, for example, PCs, cell phones, printers, computerised
cameras, and so on. Similar to the real world, the virtual world has given rise to numerous
open doors for the commission of newer offenses, for example, phishing, wholesale fraud,
kid porn, hacking, and so on. Electronic data is frequently significant in demonstrating or
discrediting a reality or truth at issue. As indicated by Black’s Law Dictionary, proof is
"something that will in general demonstrate or negate the presence of a claimed fact."
Electronic proof can be thought of as a piece of proof produced by a few mechanical or
electronic cycles. It incorporates, but is not confined to, messages, message reports,
bookkeeping sheets, pictures, illustrations, data set documents, erased records, information
back-ups, situated on floppy circles, compressed plates, hard drives, tape drives, CD-ROMs,
mobile phones, microfilms, pen drives, faxes, and so on. Till as of late, the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 didn't have explicit arrangements perceiving acceptability and enthusiasm for
advanced proof. Considerably, it was not at par with the changing needs of the society. Thus,
to regulate exchanges that are helped out through electronic information trade and different
methods of electronic correspondence, regulation was expected to be altered. Appropriately,
the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000) came to be instituted. The IT Act is
based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce. Aside from bringing
alterations to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act), the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891, the IT Act mostly perceives the exchanges that are
done through Electronic Data Interchange (implies, correspondence between PC and PC).1

1.2 What is electronic evidence ?

According to the Explanation to Section 79A of the IT Act, an electronic type of proof
signifies any data of probative worth that is either put away or sent in an electronic structure
and incorporates PC proof, computerized sound, advanced video, PDAs, advanced fax
machines. Courts can in this way license the utilization of computerized proof, for example,
messages, computerized photos, word handling reports, text chronicles, spread sheets, web

1
ALAN M, GAHTAN, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (1999)

1
program narratives, information bases, items in PC memory, PC reinforcement, got electronic
records, and gotten electronic marks, Global Positioning System tracks, Logs from a
lodging's electronic entryway, Digital video or sound and so on, throughout preliminaries of a
common or criminal case.

1.3 What is Electronic Record?

Section 2(t) of the IT Act characterizes the term electronic record' as ―data, record or
information created, picture or sound put away, got or sent in an electronic structure or
miniature film or PC produced miniature fiche; Section 6 of the IT Act gives that electronic
records and electronic marks can be utilized in Government and its organizations. Thus they
are permissible in an official courtroom. In this way, at whatever point a question concerning
online agreements or e-violations is to be settled by a court, the creation of permissible proof
becomes important to choose the benefits of the case. 2

Section 3 of the Evidence Act characterizes ―a document as follows: ―Document signifies

any matter communicated or depicted upon any substance through letters, figures or checks,
or by more than one of those methods, planned to be utilized, or which might be utilized, to
record that matter. ―Evidence in Section 3 is characterized as follows: "Proof" signifies and
incorporates — (1) all explanations which the Court allows or expects to be made before it by
witnesses, comparable to issues of reality under request; such proclamations are called oral
proof; (2) all reports including electronic records delivered for the review of the Court; such
reports are called narrative evidence.

Section 22 of the Evidence Act, which manages the significance of oral confirmations as to
items in electronic records, peruses as follows: ―22A. At the point when oral affirmation as
to items in electronic records is significant. - Oral confirmations concerning the items in
electronic records are not important, except if the validity of the electronic record delivered is
in question.

Section 59 talks about the verification of realities by oral proof. Section 59 understands
along these lines: ―59. Confirmation of realities by oral proof.- All realities, aside from the
items in archives or electronic records, might be demonstrated by oral evidence.

Section 45A of the Evidence Act is as to the assessment of the Examiner of Electronic
Evidence and it states subsequently: ―45A. Assessment of Examiner of Electronic Evidence
- When in a procedure, the court needs to shape an assessment on any matter connecting with
2
Ibid.

2
any data sent or put away in any PC asset or some other electronic or computerized structure,
the assessment of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence alluded to in section 79A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), is an important reality. Clarification - For
the purpose of this section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence will be an expert.

Section 67A of the Evidence Act manages confirmation as to computerized signature. Section
67A understands in this manner: Verification as to computerized signature. - Except on
account of a safe electronic mark, on the off chance that the computerized mark of any
supporter is claimed to have been joined to an electronic record the way that such advanced
mark is the computerized mark of the endorser should be proved. It is important to
demonstrate it in the way of confirmation of electronic records.

Section 73A of the Evidence Act manages the Proof to check of advanced signature. It is to
be understood in this way: ― Evidence as to confirmation of advanced signature. - In request
to find out whether a computerized mark is that of the individual by whom it implies to have
been fastened, the Court might coordinate - (a) that individual or the Controller or the
Certifying Authority to create the Digital Signature Certificate; (b) some other individual to
apply the public key recorded in the Digital Signature Certificate and check the computerized
signature suspected to have been joined by that individual. For this reason, the ―controller
implies the regulator named under S.17(1) of the IT Act.

Section 4 of the IT Act talks about the lawful acknowledgment of electronic records. ―
Legitimate acknowledgment of electronic records.- Where any regulation gives that data or
some other matter will be recorded as a hard copy or in the typewritten or printed structure,
then, at that point, despite anything contained in such regulation, such necessity will be
considered to have been fulfilled assuming such data or matter is-(a) delivered or made
accessible in an electronic structure; and b) open to be usable for a resulting reference. The
reasoning behind the subsequent prerequisite is that electronic information is elusive and by
its very nature transient. In this way, it is convenient to expect it to be accessible for future
reference.

Section 136 of the Evidence Act enables a Judge to choose concerning the suitability of the
proof. Altogether that the verification might be bound to important realities and may not go
past the constraints of the issue at preliminary, the Judge is enabled to ask in what way the
proof offered is significant. The adjudicator should then choose its acceptability. In State of

3
Bihar v Sri Radha Krishna3, the summit court saw that suitability of a report is a certain
something and its probative worth is very another and these two perspectives can't be joined.4

1.4 Evidence
The ordinary rule of driving narrative proof is the creation and verification of the first archive
itself. The said rule is encapsulated in Section 61, which says that items in records might be
demonstrated either by essential or by auxiliary evidence. Section 62 says that the essential
evidence method is the actual report delivered for examination by the Court. Section 63
contains the different kinds of auxiliary proof. Section 65 counts the conditions in which
optional proof can be cited. Clause (d) of Section 65 says that optional proof of the items in a
report can be driven when the first is of such a nature as not to be effectively versatile.

Electronic working frameworks and emotionally supportive networks in the industry can't be
moved to court. The data is put away in these PCs on attractive tapes (hard circles).
Electronic records delivered thusly must be taken as a print out. Sub-Section (1) of S.65B
makes permissible minus any additional verification, in proof, the print out of an electronic
record contained on an attractive media, dependent upon the fulfilment of the circumstances
referenced in Sub-section (2). Consequently, consistence with Sub-section (1) and (2) of
Section 65B is sufficient to demonstrate the electronic records. This end streams out, even
from the language of Sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) of Section 65B permits the evidence of
the circumstances set out in Sub-section (2) through a Certificate given by the individual
portrayed in Sub-section (4) and confirms the items in the way set out in the Sub-section. The
sub-section makes permissible an electronic record when confirmed that the items in a PC
print out are produced by a PC fulfilling the states of Sub-section (1), the testament being
endorsed by the individual portrayed in that. Hence, Sub-section (4) accommodates an
elective technique to demonstrate electronic records.5

Best Evidence Rule in Proof of Contents of a Document: We as a whole realize that the best
proof of the items in a record is the actual report and the creation of the report is expected by
Section 91 of the Evidence Act in the verification of its items. One might say, the standard
articulated by Section 91 can be supposed to be a selective rule as it bars the affirmation of
oral proof for demonstrating the items in the report, besides in situations where auxiliary
proof is permitted to be driven. Section 65B is consequently an exemption for the Best
3
(1983) 2 SCR 808.
4
ARTHUR PERCIVAL WILL, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (2012).
5
BILL NELSON, AMELIA PHILLIPS & CHRISTOPHER STEUART, GUIDE TO COMPUTER FORENSICS
AND INVESTIGATION (2010).

4
Evidence Rule. Consequently, through Section 65B, the issue of Primary versus Auxiliary
proof concerning electronic records is tackled. Everything necessary is that the items in the
result should be legitimate and there ought to be motivated to accept that they are true. A
genuine duplicate can subsequently be caught on paper or a computerized media, properly
guaranteed by the eyewitness. Indian courts had perceived the items in copying as allowable
proof for quite a while before the presentation of the IT Act, dependent upon specific
circumstances being fulfilled.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v Brijmohan Ramdass

Mehra6 saw that copied discourses are a 'report', as characterized by Section 3 of the
Evidence Act, which remains on the same balance as photos, and they are permissible in
proof on fulfilling specific circumstances. The topic recorded must be demonstrated to be
applicable as per rules of significance found in the Evidence Act. In Jagjit Singh v. the State
of Haryana7, the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana precluded a
Member for surrender. While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court considered the
computerized proof as interview records from the Zee News TV station, the Aaj Tak TV slot,
and the Haryana News of Punjab Today TV station. The court confirmed that the electronic
proof put on record was acceptable and maintained the dependence put by the Speaker on the
recorded meeting while at the same time arriving at the resolution that the voices recorded on
the CD were those of the people making a move. The Supreme Court found no sickness in the
Speaker's dependence on the computerized proof and the ends came to by him.8

1.5 Method Of proof of electronic records

Electronic records being more powerless to altering, modification, interpretation, extraction,
and so on without such shields, the entire preliminary because of evidence of electronic
records can prompt crime of equity. It requires:-

 The integrity of the information: That is the information as sent or recorded was
unblemished and not altered.

 The integrity of the equipment/programming: The equipment and programming used for
perusing, downloading, deciphering, seeing or putting away was working as per set principles
and there was no deviation or debasement.

6
AIR 1975 SC 1788 (1).
7
(2006) 11 SCC 1.
8
Bindu Jindal ed. Gurmanpreet Kaur, CYBER STALKING AND VICTIMIZATION OF WOMEN: AN
ANALYTICAL STUDY, IN LAW AS A CATALYST OF SOCIAL CHANGE IN PRESENT SCENARIO (2016).

5
 Security of the framework: The framework used to access such electronic records was
gotten, and during the specific course of period it was not gotten to by any unapproved
individual, to preclude the chance of its altering or breaking down. Confirmation of SMS and
MMS: If somebody challenges the precision of an electronic proof or e-record on the grounds
of abuse of framework or working disappointment or interjection, then the individual testing
it should demonstrate a similar without question. Verification of email: E-mail is a PC result
of an electronic record and thusly, it must be demonstrated in the way recommended in
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which requires a testament to be given by an
individual possessing a dependable situation in administration of the PC. Confirmation of
Obscene SMS sent through Mobile Phone: according to section 2(t) of the IT Act, 'Portable'
is a PC and SMS in the versatile is an electronic record. Thus, it is to be demonstrated
according to section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act which requires an endorsement given by
an individual, possessing a dependable situation corresponding to the activity of that gadget
or the executives of the significant exercises. Verification of Contents of the CD: The
individual aiming to demonstrate C.D. is expected to demonstrate whether the contested C.D.
was ready by a mix of a PC working in that or different PC working in progression over that
period or of various mixes of PCs. Looking at the PC master for the verification of C.D isn't
required. notwithstanding the consistence of arrangements of section 65B.

1.6 Case laws U/S 65 B of the evidence act

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer 9settled on
Sept., 18, 2014, it was held that the Computer Output isn't allowable without the consistence
of Section 65B. It overruled the judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 10
assumed name Afzal Guru11 by the two appointed authority Bench of the Supreme Court.
That's what the court saw "the Judgment of Navjot Sandhu, to the degree, the assertion of the
law on the suitability of electronic proof relating to electronic record of this court, doesn't set
down right 10 positions and is expected to be overruled". Another three Judge Bench of the
pinnacle court in Bruno v State of UP 12
by Judgment dated 20-1-2015, managed the
suitability of proof in a lawbreaker case. In passage No.25 of the judgment, the Court held
that ―the PC produced electronic records in the proof are permissible at a preliminary if
demonstrated in the way determined by Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of
Section 65B makes permissible as a report, paper printout of electronic records put away in
9
(2014) 10 SCC 473.
10
Appeal (crl.) 373-375 of 2004.
11
(2005) 11 SCC 600.
12
(2015) 7 SCC 178.

6
optical or attractive media created by a PC, dependent upon the satisfaction of the
circumstances determined in sub-sec (2) of Section 65B. Auxiliary proof of items in record
can likewise be driven under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. In Vikram Singh v. the State of
Punjab13, a three-Judge Bench of the zenith Court observed the law in Anvar P.V, obviously
expressing that where essential proof in electronic structure has been created, no declaration
under Section 65B would be important. In any case, in an ensuing judgment delivered in
Shafhi Mohammad v The State Of Himachal Pradesh 14, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that prerequisite of endorsement under Section 65B(4) isn't compulsory
all the time. As there is polarity in the middle between Anwar PV's case and Shafhi
Mohammad's case, in the year 2019, a two-Judge Bench of the peak court alluded to the
make a difference to another three-judge seat for an explanation on the point.

The last sentence in Anvar P.V. (supra) which peruses as "...if an electronic record as such is
utilized as essential proof under Section 62 of the Evidence Act..." is consequently explained;
it is to be perused without the words "under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,..." With this
explanation, the law expressed in passage 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) needn't bother with to be
returned to." The above judgment has settled the contentions emerging from the different
clashing decisions and in this manner gave a rule in regards to the works being continued in
Trial Courts concerning the suitability of the Electronic evidence. The lawful translation by
the court of the accompanying Sections 22A, 45A, 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act has
affirmed that the put away information in CD/DVD/Pen Drive isn't permissible without a
declaration u/s 65 B(4) of Evidence Act and further explained that without any such a
testament, the oral proof to demonstrate the presence of such electronic proof and the master
view under section 45A Evidence Act can't be profited to demonstrate legitimacy thereof. In
State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath 15, the Court stressed that the non-creation of a testament
under Section 65-B on a previous event is a reparable deformity. It further held that ―the
High Court blundered in resolving that the inability to deliver a testament under Section 65-
B(4) of the Evidence Act at the stage when the charge sheet was documented was deadly to
the indictment. The requirement for the creation of such a testament would emerge when the
electronic record is looked to be delivered in proof at the preliminary. It is at that stage that
the need for the creation of the endorsement would emerge."16

13
(2017) 8 SCC 518.
14
(2018) 2 SCC 801.
15
(2019) 7 SCC 515.
16
BILL NELSON, GUIDE TO COMPUTER FORENSICS AND INVESTIGATION (2010)

7
1.7 Other case laws
In Shreya Singhal v. UOI17, the Hon'ble Apex Court announced Section 66A of the IT Act as
illegal. It has likewise been held that the more extensive scope of flow over the web 12 can't
confine the substance of the right under Article 19 (1) (a) nor could it at any point legitimize
its refusal.

In-State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai 18, the inquiry included was whether an
observer can be inspected through a video gathering. The Supreme Court saw that video
conferencing is a progression of science and innovation which licenses seeing, hearing and
conversing with somebody who isn't truly present with a similar office and simplicity as
though they were genuinely present. The legitimate prerequisite for the presence of the
observer doesn't mean genuine actual presence. The court permitted the assessment of an
observer through video conferencing and presumed that there is not a great explanation for
why the assessment of an observer by video conferencing ought not to be a fundamental
piece of electronic proof. In Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi 19, the court held that the actual
presence of an individual in Court may not be needed for reason for illustrating proof and the
equivalent should be possible through a medium like video conferencing. In Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation v. NRI Film Production Associates (P) Ltd. 20, certain
circumstances have been set down for video recording of proof. They are as per the
following:

1) The individual who inspects the observer on the screen will record a sworn
statement/undertaking before looking at the observer with a duplicate to the opposite side
concerning distinguishing proof.

2) The observer must be inspected during working long periods in Indian Courts. A vow is to
be controlled through the media.

3) The observer shouldn't argue any burden under the time difference between India and
USA.

4) Before assessment of the observer, a bunch of plaint, composed explanation, and different
records should be shipped off the observer so the observer has a colleague with the reports
and an affirmation is to be documented under the watchful eye of the Court in this regard.

17
(2015) AIR (SC) 1553.
18
AIR 2003 SC 2053.
19
AIR 2005 Cal 11.
20
AIR 2003 KANT 148.

8
5) Learned Judge is to record such comments as is material in regards to the disposition of the
observer while on the screen.

6) Learned Judge should take note of the complaints whenever raised during the recording of
witness and choose something similar at the hour of contentions.

7) After recording the proof, the equivalent is to be shipped off the observer and his mark is
to be gotten within the sight of a Notary Public and from that point it shapes part of the
record of the suit procedures.

8) The visual is to be recorded and the record would be at the two closures. The observer
likewise is to be separated from everyone else at the hour of visual gathering and the public
accountant is to authentication with this impact.

9) The learned Judge may likewise force such different circumstances as are important 13 in
a given arrangement of realities.

10) The costs and the game plans are to be borne by the candidate who needs this office. In
Suvarana Musale v. Rahul Musale21, it was held that recording of proof with the assistance of
electronic strategy and procedures is recognized and perceived in a legal framework. 22

All things considered, the Petitioner-spouse was working in U.S. furthermore, has a minor
little girl who matured 6 yrs, making a trip to India for being available genuinely was costly
and she might confront trouble in getting leave and obstacles in getting VISA. An application
for recording proof through video conferencing was accordingly permitted.

1.8 Presumptions
Section 92 of the IT Act 2000 made the amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and
inserted certain presumptions regarding the electronic evidence. They are from Section 81-A,
85-A to 85-C, 88-A and 90-A. Presumption as to telegraphic messages: The Court may
presume that a message, forwarded from a telegraph office to the person to whom such
message purports to be addressed, corresponds with a message delivered for transmission at
the office from which the message purports to be sent; but the Court shall not make any
presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered for transmission.
Presumption as to electronic messages: It includes emails, SMS, MMS etc. of messages sent
via social networking sites, like Whatsapp, Twitter etc. Under Section 88A of the IT Act,

21
WRIT PETITION NO. 6514 OF 2014.
22
2015 (2) Mh.L.J. 801.

9
there is a presumption as to such messages, which enables the Court to presume that an
electronic message forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the
addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed
into his computer for transmission; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the
person by whom such message was sent.23

23
. Bindu Jindal ed. Gurmanpreet Kaur, CYBER STALKING AND VICTIMIZATION OF WOMEN: AN
ANALYTICAL STUDY, IN LAW AS A CATALYST OF SOCIAL CHANGE IN PRESENT SCENARIO (2016).

10
Chapter 2

IMPORTANCE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION

OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Proof assumes a definitive part in the arraignment of a lawbreaker case. In any criminal case,
demonstrating or refuting a reality in an issue relies on the proof delivered by the indictment
or guard. As per Sir Blackstone, 'Proof' connotes what illustrates, clarifies, or determines the
reality of current realities or focuses on the issue either on one side or the other.1 Whenever
wrongdoing is carried out, it is the essential target of every law enforcement framework to
convey equity to the person in question. This might be accomplished by making a plan of
action to the best proof rule for example by creating the most ideal that anyone could hope to
find proof without questioning its trustworthiness. Because of the absence of proof or absence
of appropriate proof, bad-to-the-bone hoodlums are in many cases cleared or let without any
consequence based on the smallest of uncertainty. It is the critical component in deciding the
responsibility or honesty of an individual blamed for an offense. Thus, the interaction through
which such proof is gathered, investigated and introduced under the steady gaze of the court
must be laid out without question. Among the different organizations of law enforcement
framework, policing is associated with the recognizable proof, assortment, protection and
investigation of proof connecting with criminal cases. 24

At the point when such proof is introduced under the watchful eye of the court, it turns into
the obligation of the court to come to a result concerning whether such proof might be made
permissible after applying the guidelines of proof. An appointed authority attempting a crook
case has a sacrosanct obligation to see the value in the proof in an apparent way and isn't to
be represented by any sort of individual way of thinking, dynamic ideas, guesses and gathers
and ought to never be impacted by some perception or talks verified quarters of the general
public however not in restricting points of reference. He ought to altogether alienate bias and
predisposition. The predisposition need not be private however might be an obstinate
inclination.25 It is a commitment to comprehend the instance of the arraignment and the
supplication of the protection and appropriate viewpoint, address the focuses involved for
assurance, and considers the material and proof welcomed on record to validate the charges
24
BIVAS CHATTERJEE, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (2015)
25
RK Suri, Cyber Crimes (Pentagon Press, 2002).

11
and record his reasons with temperance sans emotion. The legal executive, in many events,
has featured the significance of creating the best proof, otherwise called the 'best proof rule'
in any criminal arraignment. The Courts which conclude the subject of reality have no private
information about the reality to be chosen by them. They show up at the discoveries based on
direct proof of the people who have individual information about the reality in issue or on
master proof or narrative proof if the report is permissible and properly demonstrated, or on
the fortuitous proof or they choose an issue by drawing the assumption under a required
arrangement of regulation and by involving the standards as to the obligation to prove any
claims. Among these few courses accessible to the Court for giving a finding on the subject
of reality, the narrative proof gives off an impression of being the best proof assuming the
record is permissible and is properly demonstrated and is equipped for demonstrating the
reality being referred to past doubt. Similarly, in one more legal intervention, the creation of
the best proof rule was featured by the Court setting out that the party on whom the weight to
demonstrate the reality lies, should deliver the most ideal proof that anyone could hope to
find to it. Consequently, if, in a given case, the declaration of a material observer might be
portrayed as the best proof for the situation, the Courts might demand that such best proof
should be delivered. If under any condition creation of the best proof is unimaginable.26

The main cure is to produce the next best proof and in these cases, on the off chance that the
party produces next best proof, the Court needs to take such next best proof in thought and
see if the supposed reality has or has not been demonstrated. In criminal cases, each reality
that is utilized to lay out the culpability of the blamed by the arraignment should be
demonstrated for certain, whatever be the idea of proof, be it narrative proof, oral proof,
conditional proof or by attracting assumptions as per any obligatory arrangements of law. It is
vital to take note that the result of criminal procedures essentially relies on the strength and
acceptability of proof, which incorporates genuine proof, logical proof, witness declaration
and so on. It is a deeply grounded rule that criminal indictments depend on confirmation
without question. Subsequently, it turns into a test for the organizations of law enforcement
organizations to guarantee something very similar. The inquiry that frequently emerges is
how the appointed authorities who were absent at the location of the crime, and were not
onlookers themselves to the occasion and don't have the foggiest idea about the validity or the
precision of the observers called before they believe that they would pursue the best choices
on the freedom of another? Thus, it has been seen that the courts have depended upon various

26
CHRIS L.T. BROWN, COMPUTER EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION (2006).

12
sorts of proof to close any criminal indictment at last. Contingent on the kind of proof
utilized, various principles of proof has been deciphered by the court occasionally founded on
the law of proof to come to an end result.

2.1 Guidelines Of proof

In coming to a result about the culpability of the blamed accused of the commission of
wrongdoing, the court needs to pass judgment on the proof by the measuring stick of
probabilities, its natural worth and the ill will of witnesses. It has been a generally
acknowledged rule in any law enforcement framework that the event of wrongdoing is laid
out by creating an important proof for distinguishing the culprit/s of such wrongdoing. To
demonstrate something is to limit vulnerability including current realities, conditions and the
obvious end result, or to dispense with some level of vulnerability, in regards to the honesty
of the end. Verification isn't a uni-layered peculiarity; there are different levels or principles
of confirmation. The level of sureness that should be accomplished by the Court to
acknowledge the reality of reality is named the norm of verification. The two significant
guidelines are the criminal norm and the common norm. Taking everything into account, the
norm of confirmation is 'past sensible doubt'. Proof without question is required in a criminal
preliminary to presume that the blamed is blameworthy for the wrongdoing. With this degree
of confirmation, an adjudicator might feel somewhat skeptical about the responsibility of the
charge, yet that is viewed as unimportant. Demonstrating a reality without question might
lead the indictment to make serious sections of strength for a conviction. Then again, 'lion's
share of likelihood' is the level of conviction expected to demonstrate reality in a common
case. The truth of the matter is viewed as evident on the off chance that the proof for the
reality offsets proof against the reality.27

2.2 Obligation to prove any claims

Obligation to prove any claims connotes the commitment to demonstrate a reality. It implies
the obligation of laying out the whole case and it rests constantly on the individual who
claims the positive for example offended party in a common case and arraignment in a crook
case.28 In criminal cases, there is an assumption of the blamelessness of the charged and the
weight lays on the indictment to lay out the responsibility for certain. All in all, which party
worries about the concern of confirmation rely upon the sort of debate and on the regulation
applied in the case. It is just when the blame depends upon a few free matters for guard or

27
CHRIS L.T. BROWN, COMPUTER EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION (2006)
28
J.S. Rajwant, “Victim Participation in Criminal Justice System”, CLJ (2012).

13
general exemptions that he brings to the table for proof on the side of such safeguard or
exemption.

2.3 Electronic evidence in computer related crimes

With the fast development of data and innovation everywhere, the idea of crimes has likewise
gone through a revolutionary change in the a couple of many years. A large portion of the
wrongdoings in India is being perpetrated on the internet involving PCs as the device or the
objective. The term 'the internet' alludes to the virtual universe of PC, an electronic medium
used to shape a worldwide PC organization to work with electronic correspondence. It
incorporates PC, organizations, information capacity, programming, cell phones, ATMs and
so on. As such, they incorporate everything without exception which has its underlying
foundations in innovation or is some place connected with the nonexclusive term 'PC' and its
offshoots.50 In the current situation, the internet is a habitually utilized term by the data
innovation specialists, yet in addition by the legitimate clique, particularly, with regards to
utilization of innovation in perpetrating wrongdoings. There is no denying the way that the
web has turned into an essential piece of our everyday life. However, simultaneously, the
wrongdoing measurements in India uncover a disturbing ascent in the pace of PC-related
wrongdoing in India in the new times.29

A complete number of 9,622 cybercrime cases were enlisted in 2014, which went up to
12317 in 2016.30 Each wrongdoing straightforwardly or in a roundabout way includes PCs,
which has prompted a more muddled and refined situation, all things considered. Today,
essentially every wrongdoing has an electronic part as far as PCs and electronic innovation
being utilized to work with the wrongdoing. The utilization of PCs has prompted a huge
ascent in proof related to the wrongdoing, whatever the idea of the wrongdoing. Such proof is
known as electronic or advanced proof. The term 'electronic' alludes to an innovation where
physical-world data is changed over completely to the parallel numeric structure. Electronic
proof likewise alluded to as computerized proof or PC proof, incorporates any probative data
put away or sent in the advanced structure that involved in a legal dispute might use at
preliminary. Prior to tolerating computerized proof, the assurance of its significance, veracity
and genuineness should be learned by the court and to lay out on the off chance that the truth
of the matter is gossip or a duplicate is liked to the first. Proof isn't simply restricted to that

29
DARREN R. HAYES, A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO COMPUTER FORENSICS INVESTIGATIONS (2014)
30
Shaswati Das, “Cybercrime cases in India are under-reported, say experts” (13 Dec 2017)
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/kmE7EC9twVDn3DSIZlH8QM/Cybercrime-cases-in-India-are-
underreported-say-experts.html Last visited on 5 June, 2022.

14
tracked down on PCs however may likewise stretch out to remember proof for computerized
gadgets, for example, telecom or electronic sight and sound devices. Digital/electronic proof
starts as electronic information, either as an exchange, a report, or some sort of media, for
example, a sound or video recording. Exchanges incorporate monetary exchanges made
during the most common way of making a buy, taking care of a bill, pulling out cash and so
on. Practically every sort of exchange today is in the end digitized sooner or later and
becomes computerized evidence. The blast of online entertainment destinations has made a
different section of electronic proof that is both unavoidable and constant. Individuals today
are sharing their ordinary exercises, their contemplations, their own photographs, and,
surprisingly, their sections through virtual entertainment, for example, Facebook, Twitter,
etc.58 Taking into thought the way that a large portion of the exchanges are progressively
electronic, the courts have been constrained to consider electronic proof from sources like
CCTV film to electronic correspondences. In any case, regardless of the way that they have
serious sections of strength for a worth, such proof has been moved occasionally on different
grounds. It is worth focusing on that electronic records have specific innate difficulties that
their actual partners don't. Electronic information is not difficult to make, duplicate, modify,
annihilate, and move to start with one medium and then onto the next. Hence, by their actual
nature, electronic records can be handily controlled. Thusly, their precision and unwavering
quality are frequently addressed. 31

This makes a contention between the importance and suitability of electronic proof,
something that has been perceived by purviews across the world. Having stressed the way
that electronic proof is delicate and can without much of a stretch be destroyed, it is likewise
to be remembered that it isn't difficult to eliminate or erase an electronic record absolutely
from a gadget. Such proof generally stays on the hard drive of the PC even after the erasure
of the data. Duplicates might stay in secret places when lawbreakers endeavor to obliterate
electronic proof. The bits of erased documents can in any case be recuperated long after they
have been erased from the PC. This makes electronic proof one of a kind and significant for
examination purposes. This is conversely, with paper proof, which can undoubtedly be
destroyed. To qualify as proof a report should be created. While applying this to information
messages it is important to consider that human faculties can't straightforwardly see the
electronic signs that make up an information message. This implies an information message
must be delivered utilizing a result gadget: typically a PC screen, printer or information

31
DARREN R. HAYES, A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO COMPUTER FORENSICS INVESTIGATIONS (2014)

15
projector. There might be inquiries regarding the unwavering quality of a result gadget. These
can be managed as a component of the course of creation. Where, be that as it may, these
inquiries need the declaration of an observer, it will ordinarily be more helpful to manage
them as a feature of the course of verification.

2.4 Wellsprings Of electronic/ digital evidence

The electronic/advanced proof incorporates any computerized data or record that is put away,
communicated or got through an electronic medium, for example, PC, PC, tablet, versatile,
phone, pager and so on containing some evidence of any lawbreaker act, confirmation either
oral or printed message or a demonstration that is useful for settling wrongdoing related
issues. The different gadgets joined to the PC framework like hard drives, versatile
drives/stockpiling - USB streak, CD/DVD plates, SD cards and so forth and outside gadgets
with capacity limits are in many cases found to have electronic information. Taking
everything into account, PC frameworks might be classified into three gatherings:32

a) Open PC frameworks are those containing hard drives, consoles, and screens, for example,
PCs, work sections s and servers that comply with guidelines. With truly expanding capacity
limits, these frameworks can be significant wellsprings of computerized proof. A basic record
might contain implicating data and may have related properties that might be helpful to any
criminal examination. For instance, insights concerning when a record was made, who could
have made it, or that it was made on another PC can be significant for any criminal
indictment.

b) Communication frameworks Traditional phone frameworks, remote frameworks, the web

and organizations overall can be a wellspring of computerized proof. For example, media
transmission frameworks move SMS/MMS messages, and the web sends email
correspondences all over the planet. The time a message was sent, who could like be the
shipper, and what could be the items in the message - all become vital parts of examination.
To confirm when a message was sent, it could be important to look at log records from
middle servers and switches that dealt with a given message.

c) Embedded PC frameworks are those frameworks that are pre-modified for a particular
errand and can't be customized by the client and are implanted inside the gear which it
serves.64 all in all, implanted frameworks, are not at all like performing multiple tasks PCs,
are entire PC frameworks devoted to filling one exact role. They range from little convenient

32
DR. JEETENDRA PANDE & DR. AJAY PRASAD, DIGITAL FORENSICS (2016)

16
gadgets like computerized watches and MP3 players to PDAs, computer game control
centers, home machines, and GPS Navigation. The more inserted frameworks are broadening
different sorts of gadgets, the more criminological local section is focusing on research
exertion pretty much a wide range of implanted frameworks. Thus, implanted framework
criminology has as of late acquired extraordinary consideration in digital legal sciences local
section as these frameworks have ended up being basic wellsprings of computerized proof in
pretty much every crime. Such proof gives a computerized aspect to any sort of examination,
and a prepared eye can utilize this information to assemble important data about an individual
claimed to be straightforwardly or by implication related to a crime. A singular's PC and
his/her organization administrations are successfully conducting files, possibly holding more
data about a singular's exercises and wants than even his/her family and dearest
companions.33

2.5 Kinds of electronic records as evidence

As referenced before, the electronic proof can be tracked down in various structures, for
example, messages, advanced photos, ATM exchange logs, archives, text chronicles, records
saved from bookkeeping programs, accounting sheets, web program narratives data sets,
items in PC memory, PC reinforcements, PC printouts, Global Positioning System (GPS)
tracks, computerized video or sound documents and so on. The term 'electronic record' has
been characterized under section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000
(hereinafter alluded to as IT Act) as "information, record or information produced, picture, or
sound put away, got or sent in an electronic structure or miniature film or PC created
miniature fiche. 66" Therefore most significant component to be considered to term a thing as
electronic record is that it must be put away, got or sent in an electronic structure or miniature
film or PC created miniature fiche. The expression "electronic structure" is characterized
under section 2(1)(r) of the IT Act, 2000. Electronic structure regarding data signifies "any
data created, sent, got or put away in media, attractive, optical, PC memory, miniature film,
PC produced miniature fiche or comparative gadget." 34 Thus, any data which is put away,
sent or got in an electronic structure is viewed as an electronic record. With the rising
dependence on PC data, the courts are likewise under a commitment to lay out an exact
definition concerning the sort of electronic records to be conceded. PC records containing
text might be separated into two classes: PC produced endlessly records that are simply PC

33
DEJEY AND MURUGAN, CYBER FORENSICS (2018).
34
Prof. D. S. Jadhav , “Computer Forensic: An Evidence of various analytical tools for legal constitution”, 1(2)
IAI (2012).

17
stored.68 The two sorts of records vary in the way that the items in one are made by an
individual and that of the other by a machine. PC put away records allude to archives that
contain the compositions of some individual or people in electronic structure for example
email messages, word handling documents, Internet discussion board messages and so forth.
As appropriate to some other declaration or narrative proof containing human explanations,
PC put away records should consent to the gossip rule. Assuming the records are conceded to
demonstrate the reality of the situation they affirm, the individual introducing the records
should show conditions showing that the human assertions contained in the record are
credible and reliable. Then again, PC created records contain the result of PC programs with
no human mediation. Sign in records from Internet specialist organizations, phone records,
and ATM receipts will more often than not be PC produced records. Dissimilar to PC put
away records, PC created records don't contain human "explanations", yet just the result of a
PC program intended to handle input following a characterized calculation. At long last, a
third classification of PC records likewise exists, which are both computer generated and PC
stored. Depending on what realities the computerized proof should demonstrate, it can fall
into various classes of evidence.

• Digital pictures or programming introduced in court to demonstrate the reality of ownership

are genuine proof.

• E-mail interchanges introduced as confirmation of their substance are narrative proof.

• Log documents, record time stamps, and a wide range of framework data used to recreate a
succession of occasions are conditional proof.

• Digital archives notarised utilizing advanced marks might fall into declaration class.35

2.6 Lawful provision relating to electronic evidence

The critical ascent being used of PCs, the social impact of data innovation and the capacity to
store data in electronic structure have all worked with Indian regulation to be altered to
remember arrangements for the enthusiasm for electronic proof. Everything began with the
death of the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 by the Indian Parliament. This regulation
revised the current Indian resolutions including the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as to fuse of
electronic records inside the domain of 'proof' and rules connecting with acceptability of
electronic proof. The IT Act, 2000 depends on the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce and, along with
35
. DR. JEETENDRA PANDE, DIGITAL FORENSICS (2016)

18
giving changes to the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the
Banker's Book Evidence Act 1891, it perceives exchanges that are helped out through
electronic information exchange and different method for electronic correspondence. The
High Court of Punjab and Haryana on account of Laddi v. State of Haryana controlled the
accompanying: "With the difference in innovation, regular new type of proof is appearing,
prior was extensively oral and narrative proof… Nowadays, records are being ready on tapes,
minimized plates, pen-drives, CCTVs film, which ought to be treated as reports according to
the arrangements of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well as the Information Technology
Act, 2000 (hereinafter alluded to as the "IT Act")… Increasing utilization of innovation in
daily existence, particularly the Internet, social destinations, PDAs can be valuable for
specific purposes and are being utilized for crimes. The innovation enjoys its own benefits
and disservices." Following are a portion of the significant changes that got the previously
mentioned resolutions after the approaching into the power of the IT Act, 2000.

2.7 Indian evidence act 1872

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter alluded to as 'the Act') is one of the most
seasoned regulations drafted during the British system. Nonetheless, the Act has gone
through corrections occasionally to oblige the changing situation to the extent that the idea of
proof experienced during a criminal examination is concerned. Massive changes were
consolidated in the Act by ideals of Section 92 of the IT Act, 2000. Aside from re-
characterizing the term 'proof', the changes consolidated proclamations in electronic structure
as confirmations and presented a unique strategy for illustrating proof corresponding to
electronic records. A portion of these progressions are examined as follows:36

a) Incorporation of 'electronic record' inside the significance of 'report' Section 3 of the Act
was corrected and the expression "All archives delivered for the review of the Court" was
subbed by "All records including electronic records created for the investigation of the
Court".

b) Statement in electronic structure - a piece of confirmation The meaning of 'affirmation'

under Section 17 of the Evidence Act was revised to remember an assertion for oral, narrative
or electronic structure which proposes a derivation to any reality in issue or of pertinence.

c) Oral Admission in regards to Contents of Electronic Records Section 22A was embedded
into the Act to accommodate the significance of oral proof in regards to the items in

36
Ibid.

19
electronic records. It gives that oral confirmations in regards to the items in electronic records
are not important except if the validity of the electronic records created is being referred to.
d) Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence As expressed before, understanding the
lawful reason for acceptability of electronic proof as logical evidence is significant. The
equivalent was consolidated through the alterations got the Evidence Act by the IT Act, 2000.
As per Section 45-An of the Evidence Act, at whatever point the court needs to frame an
assessment with respect to any matter connecting with any data sent or put away in any PC
asset or some other electronic or computerized structure, the assessment of the analyst of
electronic proof alluded to in Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000 is important reality.

e) Proof of items in electronic record by oral proof Section 59 connecting with narrative
proof has supplanted the words "Content of archives" with the words "Content of reports or
electronic records". The term 'electronic records' has been given the very significance as that
allocated to it under the IT Act, which accommodates "information, record or information
produced, picture or sound put away, got or sent in an electronic structure or microfilm or PC
created microfiche".

f) Rules of Admissibility of Electronic Evidence The main change to the Evidence Act has
maybe been the presentation of Sections 65A and 65B under the Second Schedule of the IT
Act, which accommodates an extraordinary method for illustrating proof corresponding to
electronic records. Section 65B gives that despite anything contained in the Evidence Act,
any data contained in an electronic record (whether it be the items in a report or
correspondence imprinted on a paper, or put away, recorded, replicated in optical or attractive
media delivered by a PC), is considered to be a report and is permissible in proof minus any
additional verification of the creation of the first, gave the circumstances set down in Section
65B for the suitability of proof are fulfilled, which have been set out as under:37

Before a PC yield is permissible in proof, the accompanying circumstances as set out in

Section 65(B)(2) should be satisfied: "(2) The circumstances alluded to in subsection (1) in
regard of a PC yield will be the accompanying, specifically:

(a) the PC yield containing the data was created by the PC during the period over which the
PC was involved routinely to store or handle data for the reasons for any exercises
consistently carried on over that period by the individual having legitimate command over the
utilization of the PC;
37
EMILY VIRTUE, COMPUTER FORENSICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR LITIGATION AND DISPUTE
RESOLUTION (2003).

20
(b) during the said period, data of the sort contained in the electronic record or of the sort
from which the data so contained is determined was consistently taken care of into the PC in
the normal course of the said exercises;

(c) all through the material piece of the said period the PC was working appropriately or on
the other hand, on the off chance that not, then, at that point, in regard of any period wherein
it was not working as expected or was out of activity during that piece of the period, was not,
for example, to influence the electronic record or the exactness of its items; and

(d) the data contained in the electronic record replicates or is gotten from such data taken care
of into the PC in the standard course of the said exercises.

(3) Where over any period the capacity of putting away or handling data for the reasons for
any exercises routinely carried on over that period as referenced in proviso (a) of subsection
(2) was routinely performed by PCs, whether: (a) by a mix of PCs working over that period;
(b) by various PCs working in progression over that period; (c) by various blends of PCs
working in progression over that period; or (d) in some other way including the progressive
activity over that period, in whatever request, of at least one PCs and at least one blends of
PCs, every one of the PCs utilized for that reason during that period will be treated for the
reasons for this section as comprising a solitary PC and references in this part to a PC will be
understood in like manner." Section 65B(4) gives that to fulfill the circumstances set out
over, a testament of validness endorsed by an individual possessing a mindful authority
position is required. Such declaration will be proof of any matter expressed in the
endorsement. The authentication must:

i. distinguish the electronic record containing the assertion;

ii. depict how it was delivered; and

iii. give such specifics of any gadget engaged with the creation of the electronic record as
might be fitting to show that the electronic record was delivered by a PC.

iv. The testament should likewise manage any of the issues to which the circumstances for
acceptability relate.38

g) Presumption connecting with Gazettes in electronic structure Under the arrangements of

Section 81A of the Evidence Act, the court assumes the validity of electronic records

38
EMILY VIRTUE, COMPUTER FORENSICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR LITIGATION AND DISPUTE
RESOLUTION (2003)

21
implying to be from the Official Gazette or any legitimately represented electronic record,
given that the electronic record is kept considerably in the structure legally necessary and is
delivered from appropriate authority.

h) Presumption as to electronic arrangements Section 85-An of the Evidence Act gives that at
whatever point the computerized marks of the gatherings are joined to an electronic record
implying to be an understanding, it will be assumed by the court that the equivalent was
properly finished up.

I) Presumption as to electronic messages: under the arrangements of Section 88-A, it is

assumed that an electronic message is sent by a shipper through an electron computer for
transmission. In any case, there is no assumption concerning the individual who sent the
message. This arrangement assumes just the legitimacy of the electronic message and not the
shipper of the message.

j) Presumption as to electronic records five years of age The arrangements of Section 90-An
of the Evidence Act clarify that where an electronic record is created from guardianship
which the court views as legitimate and implies to be or alternately is ended up being five
years of age, it very well might be assumed that the computerized signature fastened to the
report was appended by the signatory or an individual approved in the interest of the
signatory. An electronic record can be supposed to be in legitimate guardianship assuming it
is in its regular spot and under the consideration of the individual under whom it would
normally be. Simultaneously, guardianship isn't thought of as inappropriate if the record is
demonstrated to have had a genuine beginning or the conditions of the specific case are, for
example, to deliver the beginning plausible. A similar rule likewise applies to confirm
introduced as an electronic duplicate of the Official Gazette.39

2.7.1 Bankers book evidence act 1872

The revision through IT Act widened the meaning of 'investor's book' to incorporate the
printout of information put away on a floppy plate or some other electro-attractive gadget
[Section 2(3)]. Section 2A gives that the printout of a passage or a duplicate of a printout
should be joined by an endorsement expressing that it is a printout of such section or a
duplicate of such printout by the important bookkeeper or branch chief, along with a
declaration from an individual responsible for the PC framework, containing a short depiction
of the PC framework and the specifics of its protections.
39
Raveena Rai, “Challenges to Cyber Crime Investigation: A Need for Statutory and Infrastructural Reforms”, 5
CNLU LJ 62 (2015).

22
2.7.2 Indian penal code,1860
Various offenses were presented under the arrangements of the First Schedule of the IT Act,
which revised the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter alluded to as IPC) regarding offenses for the
creation of archives altered to incorporate electronic records. A portion of these offenses
include: I) fleeing to stay away from the creation of a report or electronic record in a court
(Section 172, IPC); ii) deliberately forestalling the help of request, notice or decree to create a
record or electronic record in a court (Section 173); iii) purposefully overlooking to deliver or
convey up the report or electronic record to any community worker (Section 175); iv)
manufacturing misleading proof by making a bogus passage in an electronic record or
making any electronic record containing a bogus assertion, and meaning the bogus section or
proclamation to show up in proof in legal procedures (Sections 192 and 193); v) the
obliteration of an electronic record where an individual stows away or obliterates an
electronic record or decimates or delivers obscured the entire or part of an electronic record
fully intent on keeping the record from being created or utilized as proof (Section 204); and
making any misleading electronic record (Sections 463 and 465).

2.8 Aspects of electronic evidence

There is no denying the way that, all things considered, electronic or computerized proof
assumes a pivotal part in the conveyance of equity. Right from recognizing electronic proof
till they are created under the steady gaze of the court, the research offices, measurable
specialists in legal labs, people giving endorsement under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, and the adjudicator conceding or not conceding the proof in light of the
132 report submitted under the said arrangement - all play a critical part to play in the
removal of such cases. The entire cycle includes difficulties at different stages to the power of
electronic/advanced proof. A portion of these difficulties incorporates a chance of
modification, control or harm of proof, dependability of the PC program that created the
record, question concerning character of the creator of an electronic report, unwavering
quality of proof from an interpersonal interaction site, confirmation of data via web-based
Entertainment locales and so on.40

2.9 Computerized proof - chaotic and tricky type of proof

Digital proof as a type of actual proof makes tremendous difficulties for advanced
measurable investigation. In the first place, it is a muddled and dangerous type of proof that
might be undeniably challenging to deal with. A hard drive platter might contain a muddled

40
Swapnil R. Kamdar, “The Scope of Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Science”, 58(3) IND. POL. J. (2011).

23
combination of information - snippets of data combined as one and layered on top of one
another after some time. Just a tiny piece of this combination might be pertinent to a case,
which makes it important to remove helpful data, fit them together, and make an
interpretation of them into a structure that can be deciphered.41

Halfway view in extraction of information Digital proof is by and large a development of any
computerized item or occasion. At the point when a PC gets guidance through human
mediation to play out an undertaking, for example, sending an email, the subsequent
exercises create information leftovers that give just a halfway perspective on what happened.
Just certain consequences of the action, for example, the email message and server logs stay
to provide us with a halfway perspective on what happened. Moreover, utilizing a scientific
instrument to recuperate an erased record from capacity media includes a few layers of
reflection from attractive fields on the circle to the letters and numbers that we see on the
screen. Subsequently, the genuine information is never noticeable, yet just a portrayal of the
equivalent can be seen.

Trouble in crediting PC action to a particular individual Digital proof is viewed as fortuitous

in nature; subsequently, in many events, it becomes challenging to credit PC action to one
explicit person. Consequently, computerized proof must be a part of a criminal examination.
On the off chance that a case depends upon a solitary structure or wellspring of computerized
proof, for example, date-time stamps on PC records, then, at that point, the case might end up
being exceptionally feeble. Without extra data, it very well may be sensibly contended that
another person had the control of the PC. For instance, secret word security components on
certain PCs can be circumvented, and numerous PCs don't need a secret word for access,
which permits anybody to utilize them.

2.10 Simple control/change of advanced proof

According to Edmond Locard's guideline, when two things connect, there will be a trade. The
Locard guideline is many times referred to in scientific sciences and is pertinent in
computerized measurable examinations. At the point when an occurrence happens, a
lawbreaker will leave sign proof at the scene and eliminate a similarly significant proof from
the location of the crime. This change is known as Locard's trade principle. It has been
difficult for the wrongdoing examiners that advanced proof can be controlled or obliterated
without any problem. Computerized proof can be adjusted either malevolently by guilty
parties or unintentionally during assortment without leaving any obvious indicators of
41
GEORGE M. MOHAY, COMPUTER AND INTRUSION FORENSICS (2003).

24
mutilation. In any case, because of specific elements in computerized proof, such issues
might be successfully addressed.

• Digital proof can be copied precisely and a duplicate can be analyzed as though it were the
first. It is a typical practice to lead assessment just on the duplicate of the proof, hence
keeping away from the gamble of any change or harm to the first proof.

• With the assistance of proper criminological devices, it is exceptionally simple to decide

whether advanced proof has been changed or altered by contrasting it and a unique duplicate.

• Even though computerized proof is dependent upon twisting, it is challenging to annihilate

also. In any event, when a record is "erased" or a hard drive is designed, computerized proof
can be recuperated.

• When lawbreakers make endeavors to obliterate computerized proof, its duplicates and
related leftovers can stay in places without the information on the crooks. 42

2.11 Plausibility of Evidence Dynamics

As referenced before, wrongdoing specialists and computerized proof inspectors will seldom
have a valuable chance to look at a computerized crime location in its unique state and ought
to in this manner expect some proof elements for example any impact that changes, moves or
darkens proof, paying little mind to aim between the time proof is moved and the time the
case is settled. Guilty parties, casualties, specialists on call, computerized proof analysts, and
any other person who approached computerized proof before its protection can cause proof
dynamics. Some instances of proof elements are given underneath: (I) A framework head
endeavors to recuperate erased documents from a hard drive onto a similar drive. This
interaction overwrote unallocated space, bringing about possibly valuable erased information
unrecoverable. (ii) The specialists introduce a pilfered variant of a scientific device on the
compromised server. As well as violating the law by utilizing an unlicensed variant of
advanced scientific programming, the establishment adjusted and overwrote information on
the evidential PC. (iii) Responding to a PC interruption, a framework executive deliberately
erased a record that the gatecrasher had made and endeavored to safeguard computerized
proof utilizing the standard reinforcement office on framework. This reinforcement office
was obsolete and had an imperfection that made it change seasons of the records on the circle
prior to duplicating them, Thus, the date-time stamps of all documents on the plate were
changed to the momentum time, making it almost difficult to remake the wrongdoing. (iv) In
42
GORDON PELTON, INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTER FORENSICS WITH 33 REAL LIFE CASES (2011)

25
an examination including a few machines, a person on call didn't observe guideline working
strategies and neglected to gather significant proof. Moreover, proof gathered from a few
indistinguishable PC frameworks was not as expected recorded, because of which it was
undeniably challenging to decide the frameworks from where a specific sort of proof was
gathered. It has been seen that proof elements act genuine analytical like well as lawful
difficulties, making it more hard to figure out what happened and furthermore to demonstrate
the validness and believability of the proof. Moreover, any decision that a measurable
inspector would show up at without the information on how proof was changed will be
available to analysis in court, may mislead an examination, and may try and be totally
incorrect.43

2.12 Expanding awareness of electronic evidence and the judicial approach

in india
With the changes in regulation, Indian Judiciary has articulated milestone decisions as to
distinguishing proof, assortment and acceptability of electronic proof in arranging criminal
cases. Judges have likewise fostered their discernments about the characteristic 'electronic'
nature of proof, which incorporates knowledge with respect to the acceptability of such proof,
and the translation of the legitimate arrangements comparable to how electronic proof can be
accumulated and delivered under the steady gaze of the court. Thusly, it has become
extremely vital to assess the nature and other essential parts of electronic evidence.78 On
many events, the legal executive has recognized electronic proof and different types of
customary proof. In Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate 44, the Supreme Court
held: "New procedures and gadgets are thing to take care of. However such gadgets are
powerless to alter, no comprehensive rule could be set somewhere near which the affirmation
of such proof might be judged. Standard of verification of its validness and precision must be
more rigid than other narrative proof." (para 20) With an accentuation on the significance of
electronic proof, the Supreme Court of India in Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh held:
"With the progression of data innovation, logical attitude in the individual and at the
institutional level is to swarm the techniques for examination. With the rising effect of
innovation in daily existence and thus, the creation of electronic proof in cases has become
applicable to lay out the responsibility of the blamed or the risk for the respondent. Electronic
archives strictu sensu are conceded as material proof. With the revision to the Indian
43
GURMANPREET KAUR, CYBER STALKING AND VICTIMIZATION OF WOMEN: AN ANALYTICAL
STUDY, in BINDU JINDAL ED. LAW AS A CATALYST OF SOCIAL CHANGE IN PRESENT SCENARIO
(2016).
44
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2928 OF 2008.

26
Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65A and 65B were acquainted into Chapter V relating with
narrative proof. Section 65A gives that items in electronic records might be conceded as
proof assuming the models furnished in Section 65B is consented to." (para 25)45

In Gajraj v. State (NCT) of Delhi 46, the Supreme Court of India unequivocally depended on
electronic proof to the extent that the one of a kind ID number of portable handset is
concerned. The Court featured: "The proof created by the indictment depends on one evident
truth, specifically, every portable handset has an elite IEMI number. No two versatile
handsets have a similar IEMI number and each time a portable handset is utilized for settling
on a decision, other than recording the quantity of the guest as well as the individual called,
the IEMI quantities of the handsets utilized are likewise recorded by the specialist co-op. The
aforementioned real position must be remembered while looking at the arraignment proof."
The Apex Court in State v. Navjot Sandhu , while looking at the arrangements of recently
added Sections 65B, held that in a given case, the declaration containing the subtleties set
down in subsection (4) of Section 65B may not be documented, however that doesn't imply
that optional proof of an electronic record can't be given. It was held by the Court that the law
allows such proof to be given in the conditions referenced in the applicable arrangements, to
be specific, Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. The two Judge Bench of the Court
finished up as follows: "As per Section 63, auxiliary proof methods and incorporates, in
addition to other things, "duplicates exchange from the first by mechanical cycles which in
themselves safeguard the exactness of the duplicate, and duplicates contrasted and such
duplicates". Section 65 empowers optional proof of the items in a report to be cited on the off
chance that the first is of such a nature as not to be effectively versatile. It isn't in debate that
the data contained in the call record is put away in tremendous servers which won't be
quickly moved and created in the court. That is the thing the High Court has likewise seen at
para 276. Thus, printouts taken from the PCs/servers by mechanical cycle and ensured by a
capable authority of the help giving organization can be driven in proof through an observer
who can distinguish the marks of the guaranteeing official or in any case discuss the realities
because of his insight. Regardless of the consistence with the 'necessities of Section 65-B,
which is an arrangement managing suitability of electronic records, there is no bar to
illustrating optional proof under different arrangements of the Evidence Act, in particular,
Sections 63 and 65. It is possible that the testament containing the subtleties in subsection (4)

45
Hamda Bariki et al., DEFINING A STANDARD FOR REPORTING DIGITAL EVIDENCE ITEMS IN
COMPUTER FORENSIC TOOLS (2011)
46
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1797 of 2010 ·

27
of Section 65-B isn't recorded in the moment case, yet that doesn't imply that optional proof
can't be given in the conditions referenced in the important arrangements, in particular,
Sections 63 and 65".

While the instance of Navjot Sandhu worked with optional proof to be allowed as a proof of
electronic proof, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer 47
overruled Navjot Sandhu and stressed on the requirement for a testament under Section 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Apex Court has held as under: "Any narrative proof
via an electronic record under the Evidence Act, considering Sections 59 and 65A, can be
demonstrated exclusively as per the technique recommended Under Section 65B. Section
65B arrangements with the tolerability of the electronic record. The reason for these
arrangements is to purify optional proof in electronic structure, produced by a PC. It very
well might be noticed that the Section begins with a non obstante statement. In this way,
despite anything contained in the Evidence Act, any data contained in an electronic record
which is imprinted on a paper, put away, recorded or replicated in optical or attractive media
delivered by a PC will be considered to be a report provided that the circumstances
referenced Under Sub-section (2) are fulfilled, minus any additional verification or creation
of the first. The actual tolerability of such a report, i.e., electronic record which is called as
PC yield, relies upon the fulfillment of the four circumstances Under Section 65B(2)."48

Subsequently, Secondary information in CD/DVD/Pen Drive is not permissible without a

declaration under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. The reason for these
arrangements is to purify optional proof in electronic structure created by a PC. It was
additionally explained that the an endorsement should go with the electronic record like PC
printout, Compact Disk (CD), Video Compact Disk (VCD), pen drive, and so forth, relating
to which an assertion is tried to be given in proof, when the equivalent is delivered in proof.
All these protections are required to guarantee the source and genuineness, which are the two
most fundamental principles relating to electronic records tried to be utilized as proof. When
the trial of acceptability is agreed with in the event of any electronic proof, the inquiry would
emerge concerning the validity thereof and in that particular situation, resort can be made to
section 45A of the Indian Evidence Act which connects with assessment of an inspector of
electronic proof. The Supreme Court's choice in Anvar got a progressive change in the
disposition of the legal executive towards electronic proof. A progression of cases has

47
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4226 OF 2012.
48
J. STRONG, MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE (1999).

28
followed keeping suitability from getting electronic proof subject to the creation of
declaration under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For instance, on account of
Sri H G Rasika @ Nithin v. the State of Karnataka 49, the High Court of Karnataka held that
provided that the electronic record is properly created as far as Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act, would the inquiry emerge concerning the validity thereof and in that particular situation,
resort can be made to Section 45-A - assessment of Examiner of Electronic Evidence. It is
worth focusing on that the legal executive, on many events, has given consolidated
acceptability of electronic proof via liberal translation of Anvar all. On account of Paras Jain
v. State of Rajasthan50, the Rajasthan HC had the chance to consider what is happening where
the arraignment had not created the declaration at the hour of recording the charge sheet; as a
matter of fact, they had delivered it throughout the preliminary. The Court excused a test
against this deferred recording by the charged in light of the fact that in Anvar, the subject of
stage at which such endorsement is to be created was not managed by the Court. Such
valuable understanding of Anvar empowered the indictment to welcome on record essential
electronic proof. From one perspective, translation of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence
Act in Anvar obtrusively dismisses standards of legal understanding, disregarding and
wilfully perusing in legal necessities as it sees fit. From a useful perspective, by setting down
compulsory structure and content prerequisites, it makes pointless unbending nature in
Section 65B. However, when seen according to a strategy viewpoint, it has prevailed with
regards to giving consistency and sureness in evidentiary practices, all things considered.
This can be acknowledged from the training the lower courts in India have been enjoying
concerning suitability of electronic proof since September 2014 (since the conveyance of
judgment in Anvar), with exemptions like Tomaso Bruno in January 2015, where the court
demanded creation of electronic proof as a urgent proof in the case. However, the principles
set somewhere near Anvar should be returned to remembering the expansion in the utilization
of innovation in carrying out violations. In the current situation, when the talk is on
modernization of rules of proof, the legal translation in Anvar might go about as a genuine
deterrent in conceding electronic proof under the steady gaze of the courts. Consequently, it
is critical that the techniques for verifying electronic proof ought not be restricted to the
translation given in Anvar. In an exceptionally late legal proclamation, specifically, Shafhi
Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh51, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court raised

49
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7282 OF 2017.
50
2015 SCC Online Raj 8331..
51
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.2302 of 2017.

29
the issue of creation of endorsement under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act as a
compulsory rule for suitability of electronic proof. The issue under the steady gaze of the
Court was whether videography of the location of crime or scene of recuperation during
examination ought to be important to motivate trust in the proof gathered. Reference was
utilized Body-worn cameras by policing, which not just goes about as obstruction against
hostile to social way of behaving and is likewise a device to gather the proof. The matter was
brought up by Union back Home Secretary to comprise Committee of specialists to work
with the utilization of videography in crime locations. In this specific situation, the topic of
tolerability of electronic proof was raised. 52

The Court gave an extremely helpful translation of Section 65-B(4) in the accompanying
way: "The materialness of procedural prerequisite under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act
of outfitting endorsement is to be applied just when such electronic proof is an in a created by
an individual situation to deliver such testament being in charge of the said gadget and not of
the contrary party. For a situation where electronic proof is a not in delivered by a party
ownership of a gadget, pertinence of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act can't be held to
be rejected. The pertinence of necessity of authentication being procedural can be loose by
Court any place interest of equity so legitimizes." In continuation to this, on April 3, 2018,
the Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh alluded to the game
plan ready by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the utilization of videography in the
police examination specifying limited working concerning preparing, hardware, scientific
offices, a plan for imperative assets, readiness of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The
Court has given essential headings and held that "now is the ideal opportunity that means are
taken to present videography in examination, especially for crime location as alluring and
satisfactory best practice as proposed by the Committee of the MHA to reinforce the Rule of
Law." Under such conditions, it is exceptionally helpful that the techniques to verify
electronic proof are additionally fortified, aside from creation of an endorsement as
emphasized in Anvar. Such methodology makes the legal parts of electronic or computerized
proof even more pivotal. It is, in this way, fundamental to guarantee that PC related proof
was gathered, safeguarded and communicated as per legitimate necessities to conform to the
principles of suitability. Nonetheless, on account of the immaterial person of the electronic
proof, many cases don't for a moment even come to court in view of compromised proof.
Supplanting apparent and substantial objects of verification by undetectable and immaterial

52
JACK BALKIN et al. CYBERCRIME: DIGITAL COPS IN A NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT (2007).

30
proof in the field of data innovation, doesn't just make common sense issues, yet additionally
opens up new legitimate issues.90 simultaneously, this can't be rejected that there is a fast
development in the quantity of criminal cases including electronic proof. This has again and
again found policing the legal executive in a tough situation with new issues made by new
difficulties. Not at all like other conventional wrongdoings, policing have been experiencing
new difficulties with violations connecting with the internet every day of the week. Criminal
demonstrations are being perpetrated and the proof of these exercises is kept in electronic
structure. It is critical that the policing know about a portion of the necessities of the overall
set of laws and grasps the creating field of PC crime scene investigation. The headway in
correspondence and innovation, without a doubt, essentially affects the legitimate foundation
and a significant region in which this is being felt is that of the obtaining, confirmation,
assessment and legitimate suitability of data put away on attractive and other media. Hence, it
is vital to make an examination of the difficulties experienced by the policing in researching
PC related violations in India.

31
Chapter 3

HANDLING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATION: THE ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
IN INDIA

3.1 The changing nature of crime: the present scenario

In light of an inquiry before Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Parliament of India) on the
quantity of cases enlisted in Delhi over the most recent two years for example 2017 and 2018,
and the quantity of situations where examinations have been finished, the Minister of State in
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India expressed that in the year 2018, an all out
number of 160 cases were enlisted by Cyber Crime Cell of Delhi Police out of which
examination was finished exclusively for 26 cases (up to 30.11.2018).1 With the progression
of science and innovation, the utilization of a similar in everyday speech has likewise gone up
fundamentally over the most recent couple of many years. Subsequently, the idea of
violations has become profoundly modern and specialized in nature. The ascent of digital
violations and other conventional wrongdoings including utilization of PC and other
electronic gadgets have added to the many difficulties of the policing in India who are the key
job players in the whole criminal examination process right from assortment of proof till they
are delivered under the watchful eye of the court. Their job turns out to be more critical when
the proof to be gathered is immaterial in nature and requires specialized information to
research further, like managing electronic records. There have been occurrences in India
where the policing has not dealt with the assortment of electronic proof in a lawfully strong
climate, which is a urgent part of digital measurable activity. On many events, the examining
authorities in digital wrongdoing cells have communicated their defenselessness while
managing cases requiring exceptionally modern examination process. 53

In assortments of cases requiring PC ability, the authorities are compelled to depend on legal
labs or confidential examiners. In the majority of such cases including PCs, there is a
pressing requirement for recovering confirmations, which are electronic in nature, from
sources like messages, sites, discussion boards, and data sets and so on incorporating data put
away in workstations, work section s and cell phones for prompt intervention. In 2015, the

53
Supra note 1.

32
conviction rate for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was just 47%. The Law
Commission of India in its 239th Report (2012) distinguished low quality of examination by
police as one of the essential explanations behind the low conviction pace of wrongdoing in
India. As far as examinations including innovation are concerned, the police have
fundamentally needed preparing and the ability to fulfil the needs of the contemporary time.
The information on regulation among these offices is exceptionally poor because of which
they neglect to really direct the examination. Considering these lacks, the Second
Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) suggested that states ought to have particular
examination units inside the police force for better examination of crimes. In December 2015,
in the capital city of Delhi, Turkey-based programmers thought to be working for the dread
outfit Islamic State redirected ₹ 6 Crore in Indian cash by sending their own record numbers
to a UK-based firm from the email id of its Delhi-based worker for hire. 54 Delhi Police ended
up in a fix during the examination since they needed to look at messages, email records,
source and beginning of exchanges etc. In assortments of criminal cases requiring specialized
skills, the research organizations depend on scientific science labs. In the cases referenced
above, proof was to be recovered from messages, pages, discussion boards as well as from
workstations, work sections, cell phones and so on immediately. There are various occasions
where the policing is not well equipped to deal with basic circumstances connecting with
electronic proof. Such oddities at the phase of assortment of computerized proof at last
outcome in unfortunate tolerability of proof in the courts and decrease in pace of conviction.
Without a trace of a substantial PC measurable system, the examining organizations wind up
seizing or gathering electronic data deficiently. 55

There is no question about the way that assortment of confirmations from the PCs and
gadgets connecting with data innovation is a difficult occupation for the police and other
examining organizations in India. Assortment and examination of proof from PCs require
specialized information and it is sad to take note that specialized abilities are truly ailing in a
significant number of them. Computers and different gadgets connecting with data innovation
are utilized as one or the other objective of a crook act or vehicle for committing an offense.
In this day and age of Internet and PC organizations, a crime might be completed across
public boundaries with a misguided feeling of namelessness. From a more extensive
perspective, two classifications of PC related wrongdoings might be recognized. One is
involving the PC as a gadget to carry out wrongdoing, and the other is a lawbreaker act
54
.Vivek Dubey, “Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: An Indian Perspective”, 4(2) FRCINTJ (2017).
55
Supra note 23.

33
holding back nothing coming about in digital wrongdoing. In both of the cases, the
blamelessness or responsibility of the delinquent people is laid out by declarations and proof.
In wrongdoing including the utilization of innovation, the proof outfitted is likewise in
electronic or computerized structure. The assortment and safeguarding of proof during
examination has truly been a difficult component, all things considered. The most difficult
angle is that not normal for some other conventional or actual proof, electronic proof isn't
apparent to the natural eye. Consequently, logical procedures should be depended on to
decipher such evidence. At times, the precision of such proof might be resolved exclusively
with the intercession of an expert. Integration of software engineering and regulation has
arisen as another section for examination of wrongdoing, which is known as PC crime scene
investigation. The scientific specialists make pictures or cloning of the first electronic record,
protect, investigate and introduce them. Policing assumes a critical part in this cycle as they
are the specialists on call in taking care of the electronic or computerized proof connected
with any wrongdoing. In this unique circumstance, it is critical to address the difficulties
experienced by the policing during this cycle so the proof created under the steady gaze of the
courts are in consistence with the laid out rules of proof. The accompanying segments of this
part center around surveying the job of policing in taking care of electronic proof regarding
existing regulations, manual and rules and so forth.56

3.2 Developing importance of electronic evidence: the role of computer

forensics
The twenty first century has seen an extreme change in the field of Information Technology
bringing about expanding exercises on the internet wherein the web gives equivalent
admittance to any data. This rising dependence on electronic methods for correspondence has
prompted abuse of data on the internet as digital wrongdoings or some other conventional
violations utilizing PCs. Today, pretty much every wrongdoing has an electronic part because
of which the significance of electronic proof has likewise gone up essentially. As referenced
in the past part on electronic proof, such encounters have plainly pointed towards the way
that keeping up with the honesty of electronic proof all through the course of examination
and preliminary is troublesome when it is contrasted with the treatment of customary,
physical or narrative proof. Dissimilar to other actual proof, electronic proof has specific
qualities because of which exceptional difficulties are being experienced during the most
common way of conceding such proof under the watchful eye of the courtroom. Electronic or
56
Supra note 24.

34
computerized proof, first of all, isn't apparent to natural eye; accordingly, explicit apparatuses
and innovation should be embraced to involve such proof in any court. Furthermore, such
proof, being delicate in nature, is effectively dependent upon modification. Accordingly, it
neglects to fulfil the essential guidelines of suitability, taking everything into account.
Thirdly, it requires explicit instruments and innovation to gather, safeguard and dissect such
proof. All in all, master declaration is depended upon to concede electronic proof in court of
law. Electronic proof isn't simply restricted to that tracked down on PCs yet may likewise
stretch out to remember proof for advanced gadgets like media transmission or electronic
sight and sound gadgets. All the more especially, they might be found as messages, advanced
photos, ATM exchange logs, archives, text accounts, web program narratives data sets,
smaller plates, DVDs, Global Positioning System tracks, Digital cameras, memory sticks and
memory/SIM cards, PDAs, cells and so on. They will generally be more voluminous, more
hard to obliterate, handily changed, effortlessly copied, possibly more expressive and all the
more promptly available. Increasing dependence on proof separated from PC frameworks to
achieve convictions has prompted rise of another method for logical examination for example
PC criminology. Criminological science works with the use of standards of actual sciences in
lawful issues to convey equity in the general public. PC criminology is an arising section of
criminological science managing proof situated in PCs and related electronic capacity media.
It is an incorporation of software engineering and regulation for successful examination of
wrongdoing. 57

The legal specialists are liable for making pictures or cloning the first electronic information,
saving, examining and introducing a similar under the watchful eye of the courtroom for the
legal executive to resolve. PC crime scene investigation, additionally named as 'computerized
legal sciences', has existed however long individuals have put away information inside the
computers. It is a section of study which is worried about the ID, extraction and examination
of advanced information. As an arising section of science, PC criminology has turned into a
necessary piece of logical extraction of electronic proof, which could never have been
recuperated in any case, for example, email correspondences, instant messages and
admittance to records containing documents. The researching organizations must consent to
the legitimate strategy while gathering, protecting and dissecting proof from PC frameworks
to guarantee acceptability under the steady gaze of the court. Sadly, the regulations preceding
the development of PC criminology are lacking to evaluate the procedures utilized in PC

57
Supra note 4.

35
frameworks. On many events, the absence of sufficient components to see the value in the PC
based proof has brought about unfortunate suitability of such proof in the court. Those
upholding for protection have unequivocally had a problem with utilization of PC measurable
devices to get to information, as it could prompt infringement of right to security, which is a
significant part of common liberties of a person. Furthermore, with the headway of strategies
for encryption and obscurity, there is a high chance of abuse of innovation by culprits of
wrongdoing on the internet. At last, legitimate limits might end up being an obstacle in using
PC scientific system during criminal examination. With the expansion in the modern idea of
wrongdoing in the new times, the legal executive has, consistently, alluded to use of logical
methods in examination of such violations, as dependence on conventional actual proof may
not be adequate to demonstrate realities for certain. In Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP 58, the
court saw that progression of data innovation and logical attitude should swarm the strategy
for examination. Electronic proof was applicable to lay out realities. Logical and electronic
proof can be an extraordinary assistance to a researching office. On account of Darshan T S
v. State of Karnataka59, while featuring on essential issues connecting with police changes,
the High Court of Karnataka held as follows: "Researching a crook case is definitely not a
simple or a standard work. It requires careful impressive skill and amazing skill can be
accomplished exclusively through successful preparation. Numerous offenses have become
hey tech, as in cell phones and electronic gadgets are utilized to bring forth tricks and
messages are sent through SMS and email. Computerized proof assumes an essential part by
and large. Capture of hard plates, assortment of call subtleties and such other computerized
materials require exhaustive information on Digital Forensic Science. Verification of such
computerized proof requires stricter proof according to Sections 65-A and B of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. The conventions in demonstrating computerized proof are made
stricter." Hence, from one perspective, utilization of logical procedures in criminal
examination is required for tenable outcomes because of specialized nature of violations, on
the other, it should be remembered that such strategies to remove proof, which is in electronic
structure, should comply to the essential principles of proof for demonstrating them in the
court.60

58
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2015.
59
Crl.P. NO. 7706/2015.
60
JACK BALKIN et al. CYBERCRIME: DIGITAL COPS IN A NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT (2007)

36
3.3 Central principles of electronic/ digital evidence
Treatment of electronic or computerized proof at the crime location is one of the most vital
parts of a criminal examination including PC related wrongdoings. The cycle normally
incorporates the acknowledgment, distinguishing proof, seizure, and getting of all electronic
proof at the scene, appropriate documentation of the location of crime, assortment and
safeguarding of proof lastly, bundling and transportation of the equivalent for additional
criminological examination. The underpinning of any case including electronic or advanced
proof lies in the standards referenced underneath:

Guideline 1 - The policing should accept extreme attention to detail in gathering proof from
any electronic gadget and guarantee that information contained in that stay unaltered, so the
equivalent might be depended upon by the court.

Guideline 2 - in the event of dire requirement for getting to unique information hung on a PC
or any stockpiling media, the individual getting to a similar should be able to do so and make
sense of the important proof and its suggestions.

Guideline 3 - There is a need to make and protect the review trail or different cycles
connecting with the PC based proof. A free outsider ought to have the option to inspect those
cycles and show up at a similar outcome.

Guideline 4 - The exploring official has the general liability to guarantee that the standards of
proof and these standards are complied with. PC based electronic proof is dependent upon the
very decides and regulations that apply to narrative proof. While delivering such proof, it is
fundamental to exhibit how the proof has been recuperated, showing each phase of getting
such proof. Proof ought to be protected so much that an outsider can rehash a similar
interaction and show up at the very result as that introduced to a court.61

3.4 Examination OF Computer related crimes and handling of electronic

evidence
Examination plays an essential part to play in the law enforcement conveyance process. The
essential target of a criminal preliminary is to give equity to all for example the charged, the
survivor of the wrongdoing and the general public. The quittance and conviction of a
denounced in a crook continuing to an extremely huge degree are subject to the examination
process. The researching group releases an exceptionally grave public obligation to do the
examination in each wrongdoing which they are supposed to perform with all genuineness,

61
Ibid.

37
trustworthiness, commitment, leaving no extension for provisos or holes, before recording the
charge sheet for the beginning of trial. The Supreme Court of India in Jamuna Chaudhary v.
State of Bihar62 held that the obligation of the exploring group isn't simply to fortify an
indictment case with so much proof as may empower the court to record the conviction, yet
additionally to draw out the genuine unvarnished truth. Under Section 2 (h) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, examination has been characterized as "examination incorporates
every one of the procedures under this Code for the assortment of proof directed by a cop or
by any individual an approved by a (other than a Magistrate for this sake". This definition
given in the criminal technique code is comprehensive and non-exhaustive. In the question of
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi63, while setting out the system of
examination, the Supreme Court of India thoroughly set down as follows: "… … … .under
the Code examination comprises for the most part of the accompanying steps:(1) Proceeding
to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of current realities and conditions of the case, (3) Discovery
and capture of the thought wrongdoer, (4) Collection of proof connecting with the
commission of the offense which might comprise of (a) the assessment of different people
(counting the denounced) and the decrease of their assertions into composing, in the event
that the official thinks fit, (b) the hunt of spots of capture of things thought about fundamental
for the examination and to be delivered at the preliminary, and (5) Formation of the
assessment concerning whether on the material gathered there is a case to put the charged
before a Magistrate for preliminary and provided that this is true making the essential strides
for a similar by the documenting of a chargesheet under Section 173." The previously
mentioned perception was likewise made by the Madras High Court in Asst. Gatherer of
focal Excise, Prevention v. Krishnamurthy64. Setting out the idea of fair examination and
preliminary, the Supreme Court of India in the question of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) 65, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the examination
ought to be "reasonable, fair, straightforward and speedy" to guarantee consistence to the
fundamental law and order. On many events, the researching organizations neglect to lead
viable examinations because of absence of current gear to do a portion of the specialized
parts of the examination interaction. The quantity of measurable science research facilities is
likewise not very many, because of which, delivering ideal help to the examining
organization has not been imaginable, keeping in view the consistent increment of in fact
62
1974 SCR (2) 609.
63
1955 SCR (1)1150.
64
1983 CriLJ 1880.
65
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2007.

38
testing wrongdoings being perpetrated in the new times. Further, it is likewise a significant
reality to be noticed that there is a lack of scientific specialists in police divisions of different
States. As an outcome, the police wind up depending more on oral proof as opposed to
zeroing in on logical and conditional proof, which might have been more essential in coming
to a sensible end result.66

It has been an acknowledged truth that there are three significant fixings expected for the
commission of a wrongdoing: propelled culprits, the accessibility of proper open doors and
the absence of an office to screen a situation.26 As far as digital violations or some other PC
related wrongdoings are concerned, a computerized climate works with every one of the three
variables for commission of a wrongdoing on the internet. Innovation has both worked with
and hindered the examination of wrongdoing, especially violations including figuring of
wrongdoing and correspondence advances for sure is depicted as cybercrime. From one
viewpoint, PCs have gotten a progressive change in the field of data and correspondence
innovation by working with speedier access and dispersal of information and examination of
the equivalent. Then again, because of the connection of immense measure of electronic
information on the internet, the agents are finding it hard to analyze gigabytes of information
and access scrambled documents to remove the required information. Needless to say that
one of the most difficult parts of such crime is the issue of ward for policing and the legal
executive. The essential target of an examination cycle includes the accompanying:
recognizable proof of wrongdoing, assortment of proof, upkeep of the uprightness of proof
and getting the participation of the denounced in court. In any general set of laws, the
execution of regulation is subject to the chief. The second a case is enrolled with the police,
criminal regulation is supposed to be gotten under way, which initiates with the examination
of a wrongdoing. Consequently, for execution of criminal regulation, there is a requirement
for successful examining hardware set up. In India, the essential regulation for managing the
examination of a wrongdoing is the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Despite the way that
a deeply grounded procedural regulation is set up to manage the course of examination in
criminal procedures, managing cybercrime or some other PC related wrongdoing has been
more difficult as the proof managed in such examination is profoundly specialized in nature.
In that capacity, there is a requirement for the overall set of laws as well as the legal
executive to adapt up to the changing idea of wrongdoing. In Ram Singh v. Col. Slam
Singh67, a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India considered the significance of
66
JOHN R. VACCA, COMPUTER FORENSICS: COMPUTER CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION (2004).
67
1985 SCR Supl. (2) 399.

39
logical examination which is the need of great importance. Reference was made to R. v.
Maqsud Ali and R. v. Robson to stress on the way that it would be inappropriate to deny to
the law of proof benefits to be acquired by new methods and new gadgets, gave the exactness
of the recording can be demonstrated. Such proof, in any case, should be broke down or
utilized with alert. In the previously mentioned cases, electronic proof was held to be
permissible by the court subject to shields embraced for the genuineness of the equivalent. In
Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, a Three-Judge Bench saw that headway of
data innovation and logical attitude should invade the strategy for examination. Logical and
electronic proof can be an incredible assistance to an examining office. In such manner,
reference might be pursued to the choices of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab
v. State of Maharashtra68, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu69.

In Subhendu Nath v. State of West Bengal70, the First Information Report (FIR) was
connected with a wedding question between the solicitor and his better half. It was claimed in
the FIR that with the object of maligning her, the candidate had posted frightful photos of his
significant other on an informal community stage and had broadly coursed such materials.
Even though FIR was enrolled entomb alia on such allegations, offenses under Sections 66E
(Punishment for infringement of Privacy) and 67A (Punishment for distributing or
communicating of material containing physically express demonstration, and so on, in
electronic type) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter alluded to as IT Act,
2000) (altered in 2008) were not added to the FIR and the examination was led by an
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police disregarding the arrangements of Section 78 of the IT Act,
2000. Stressing on the significance of directing examination including offenses under
Information Technology Act or potentially offenses including electronic proof delicately and
legitimately, the High Court of Calcutta held: In the current times, digital violations are on
the ascent. Proof concerning such wrongdoing is as electronic records put away in different
gadgets which should be gathered, protected, examined and delivered in court as per the
system endorsed under regulation. There is gross absence of mindfulness as well as readiness
in the police power to manage such wrongdoings.71

It is likewise not awkward to specify that proof as to customary wrongdoings come as

electronic records specifically, CCTV film, electronic messages, whatsapp and talk messages
68
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1899-1900 OF 2011.
69
Appeal (crl.) 373-375 of 2004.
70
2019 SCC OnLine Cal 242.
71
JOHN REYNOLDS GULSON, PHILOSOPHY OF PROOF IN ITS RELATION TO THE ENGLISH LAW OF
JUDICIAL EVIDENCE (2012).

40
on interpersonal interaction stage and so forth. Subsequently, there is a crying need to prepare
and acclimate individuals from the police force in the question of assortment, gathering,
capacity, examination and creation of electronic proof. It is additionally applicable to take
note of that electronic proof by its very nature is helpless to altering or potentially adjustment
and requires delicate dealing with. A break in the chain of guardianship or ill-advised
safeguarding of such proof render it vitiated and such proof can't be depended in legal
procedures. Important confirmation under Section 65E of the Indian Evidence Act is likewise
a pre-imperative for suitability of such proof. Regardless of whether such certificate is
available, dependability of electronic proof relies upon appropriate assortment, safeguarding
and creation in court. Any lacuna in such manner would deliver such proof open to respect to
its probative worth. These elements have come to our notification in the current case as well
as in various cases contended before us as of late.72 Under such conditions, the Court gave
specific headings to guarantee that the examination of violations including electronic proof is
directed in a fair, unbiased and powerful way and such proof are gathered, saved and created
in Court in an effective way and the quest for truth and arraignment of wrongdoers are not
impacted because of the absence of skill and information on the police force in such manner.
Coming up next are the headings: (a) Director General of Police, West Bengal will guarantee
legitimate preparation of individuals from police force in gathering, protection and
examination of electronic proof in the police preparing schools consistently. Something like
one official in the position of Inspector from each police headquarters will go to such
instructional class and will be guaranteed by the police trade school as a spent significant
time with regards to this issue official of managing in electronic proof; (b) Investigation of
violations including offenses under Information Technology Act and offenses where
electronic proof has a pre-predominant impact will be led by the official/officials who
has/have gotten specific preparation in gathering, safeguarding, examination and security of
electronic proof, as previously mentioned, in meeting with particular offices; (c) Every region
will have an extraordinary digital cell containing officials who have specific information in
the question of managing electronic proof and such exceptional cells will deliver fundamental
help to the neighborhood police headquarters at whatever point such help is looked for in the
issue of examination of digital offenses or potentially offenses including electronic proof; (d)
Director General of Police, West Bengal in meeting with specialists will present a standard
working methodology as to the protection, assortment, examination and creating of electronic

72
Yunus Yusof , “COMMON PHASES OF COMPUTER FORENSICS INVESTIGATION MODELS”, 3 (3),
INT. J. OF COMP. SC. & INF. TECH. (IJCSIT), 19, ( 2011).

41
proof in criminal cases under the steady gaze of this court on the following date of hearing.
He will likewise submit report concerning steps taken as to execution of bearings nos. (a), (b)
and (c) of this request. (e) Forensic examination of electronic proof or potentially gadgets is
of most extreme significance to guarantee the genuineness and unwavering quality of such
proof. Dread concerning the genuineness of electronic proof makes an obstacle in depending
on such proof when delivered under the steady gaze of regulation courts. It is in this way,
fundamental that specific legal units be set up in the State to work with assessment as well as
examination of electronic evidence. It is worth focusing that a greater part of digital
violations in India stays unreported because of sheer obliviousness concerning the
complainant and the research organizations. Without any logical proof and information and
legitimate digital wrongdoing examination, the pace of conviction of digital wrongdoing has
been exceptionally low. As per the information on state-wise removal of digital wrongdoing
by courts in India (2016) as given by National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB), 92.3% cases
are forthcoming under the watchful eye of the courts in India, while the pace of conviction
starting around 2016 was just 27.1%. Additionally, 61.9% of cybercrime cases were
forthcoming removal by the police in 2016. As a matter of fact, numerous Public Interest
Litigations (PILs) are forthcoming under the watchful eye of the Apex Court with respect to
the utilization of innovation in examination of wrongdoings. Today, innovation has turned
into a vital piece of the vast majority of the wrongdoings, be it conventional violations like
robbery, murder, or wrongdoings on the internet, for example, following, slander, harassing
and so on including other genuine violations like digital assaults in critical administrations for
example banking, wellbeing section and so on. With the contribution of PCs in carrying out
violations, the customary procedural regulations have been tested on many events as existing
legitimate system neglects to address a portion of the exceptionally specialized issues. The
issue doesn't be guaranteed to lie in that frame of mind of preliminary set somewhere near
regulation, however in the conventional principles and strategy of examination and
assortment of proof from location of crime including PCs and other computerized gadgets.
PC related violations require sufficient mastery for examination by exploring officials.
Subsequently, the examination group should be exceptional with fundamental abilities and
experience to do examination which might require assorted specialized inputs connecting
with PCs. It is to be noticed that the IT Act 2000 set up an exceptional methodology for
examination of cybercrime. 73

73
. KANELLIS, P ET AL., DIGITAL CRIME AND FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CYBERSPACE (2006)

42
Under the said Act, the ability to research offenses was vested with the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, which doesn't work with a fast examination process as the power
was vested with a senior individual from the police force. In any case, with the revision of the
Act in 2008, an Inspector is given the ability to examine offenses under the Act like some
other conventional wrongdoing. With the changing pattern in commission of violations, it has
likewise become fundamental for the examining organizations to know all about the
essentials of PC measurable system as they assume a pivotal part in the recognizable proof,
assortment and conservation of electronic proof. At the point when wrongdoing happens that
includes PCs, the examiners should have the option to distinguish the nexus between the
wrongdoing and the PC utilized, complete every one of the conventions to direct hunt and
capture the PC utilized in the commission of wrongdoing, and in this manner assemble proof
which is electronic in nature. Simultaneously, the examiners and judges must grasp the job of
electronic proof in criminal examinations. It is vital to take note that a large portion of the
significant urban communities in India, particularly the metropolitan urban communities have
thought of cybercrime police headquarters with specialized gear to manage such
wrongdoings. Simultaneously, the people who are not straightforwardly engaged with such
complex wrongdoings, should likewise know the quick strides to be taken when a PC is
found at a wrongdoing or capture scene notwithstanding the difficulties associated with
treatment of PC based proof, the broad utilization of Internet has welcomed extra difficulties
in the crime location examination. Because of the powerful idea of the web, a website utilized
for perpetrating wrongdoing on the internet may not be something similar or vanishes on an
alternate day. It is challenging to follow culprits of such violations as they approach a specific
site from various PCs and various section s each time they sign on. The very truth that a
specific PC was utilized to get to a specific site/server at a given time and date, isn't sufficient
to lay out the personality of the individual getting to through the said PC. PCs can yield proof
of a wide scope of criminal and other unlawful exercises; hoodlums who took part in
network-based wrongdoings are by all accounts not the only ones who store data on PCs.
Numerous hoodlums took part in customary wrongdoings like homicide, grabbing, rape, and
so forth keeping up with records with implicating proof on their computers.74

3.5 Treatment of Electronic Evidence and Law Enforcement Agencies

Crime location examination is an interaction that includes measurable knowledge and
abilities. It is more than the simple assortment or bundling of actual proof. Being the most

74
KARNIKA SETH, COMPUTERS, INTERNET AND NEW TECHNOLOGY LAWS (2016)

43
essential advance of any legal examination of a potential crook act is thought of. The
groundwork of a criminological examination depends on the capacity of the detective to
distinguish the potential and significance of actual proof accessible at the location of crime. A
legitimate examination helps in the reproduction of the wrongdoing scene in the event of PC
related violations, different electronic gadgets, for example, PCs, cell phones and so on are
viewed as an expansion of the crime location, in any event, when they may not be
straightforwardly associated with the commission of wrongdoing, as they might give lead
data respect to utilization of computerized gadgets in the expressed demonstration of
wrongdoing. Consequently, it is an essential prerequisite that both the physical and
computerized crime locations are handled in a deliberate way to guarantee the respectability
of likely proof - physical as well as electronic. Compelling treatment of PCs and
organizations as proof connecting with a wrongdoing sets out the groundwork of a
computerized examination which includes the periods of planning, assortment and
conservation. Absence of trustworthiness in the underlying wrongdoing dealing with cycle
can fundamentally hamper a computerized examination by disregarding essential realities or
neglecting to save computerized proof in a legitimate way, delivering it unusable for court
process. Simultaneously, a deeply grounded technique for taking care of proof will most
likely be unable to cover a wide range of difficulties and circumstances experienced during
the cycle. Consequently, policing takes care of proof high priority sufficient preparation and
experience to follow methods and handle those circumstances which are not expected by any
methodology. Plus, it is critical to take note that the lawful standards connecting with such
examination process fluctuate across the wards, which should be considered while creating
strategies and systems for dealing with PC related crime locations. It is worth focusing on
that there are global principles that have developed over a period to get consistency the
examination of PC related wrongdoings. A standard is a distributed report that rundowns laid
out particulars and systems to guarantee that a material, item, technique or administration is
good for its motivation and acts in the way it was expected for. It is an arrangement which
manages matters connecting with wellbeing, dependability and effectiveness (ISO 2009a) and
so on. Definition of International principles is a critical stage towards getting consistent
discoveries and common consistence across geological and jurisdictional borders.These
norms as conventions and rules are utilized during assortment of proof to limit the
opportunity of blunders that questions the suitability of the proof removed subsequently. In
any case, taking everything into account, no guidelines could be tracked down on the sites of
BSI (British Standards Institution), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and NIST

44
(National Institute of Standards and Technology) connected with computerized legal
sciences. The main contemporary business related to computerized legal sciences has been
distributed by The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) till date.75

3.6 Global Standard ISO/IEC 27037:2012 for recognizable proof,

assortment, securing and protection of advanced proof
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an autonomous, nongovernmental
association including guidelines associations of 164 part nations everywhere. ISO makes
records that give prerequisites, particulars, rules or qualities that can be utilized every time to
guarantee that materials, items, cycles and administrations are good for their motivation. It
works with setting of global normal guidelines among the countries. ISO has framed two
joint councils with the International Electro-specialized Commission (IEC) to foster norms
and phrasing in the field of electrical and electronic related advancements. This International
Standard ISO/IEC 27037:2012 gives rules respect to ID, assortment, procurement and
protection of expected computerized proof. These cycles are fundamental parts which should
be completely complied with to keep up with respectability of electronic proof, which at last
could add to its suitability under the steady gaze of the court of law. These International
Standards have been figured out to direct those people who are essential for the ID,
assortment, securing and protection of possible advanced proof. These people incorporate
Digital Evidence First Responders (DEFRs), Digital Evidence Specialists (DESs), episode
reaction subject matter experts and criminological lab chiefs. The target of these norms is to
work with examination including computerized gadgets and advanced proof in a precise and
fair-minded way while saving its uprightness and authenticity. The Guidelines for ID,
assortment, securing and protection of advanced proof set somewhere near ISO work with
that the people taking care of computerized proof ought to have the option to distinguish and
oversee takes a chance with that can emerge while working with this sort of proof, to
safeguard its trustworthiness. DEFRs ought to follow specific general standards to keep up
with the trustworthiness and unwavering quality of advanced proof. The targets of these
particular systems should incorporate the accompanying: 76

• To limit control of information

75
LARRY DANIEL, DIGITAL FORENSICS FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS (2012)
76
Ibid.

45
• Documentation of the multitude of occasions and changes consolidated in the computerized
proof right from the assortment till it is given over to the master for scientific examination.
This is for the master to survey the dependability of such proof.

• The standard methodology should conform to the significant lawful arrangements

connecting with advanced proof.

• The examiners should guarantee that their intercession is just to the degree to which they
are able to do. Perception of these major standards ought to prompt the conservation of proof
for reasons for examination. If a change to the proof can't be stayed away from, all activities
that were completed and the explanations behind them are appropriately reported. The sub-
processes involved in handling digital evidence are as follows:

A) Identification The ID cycle incorporates looking, distinguishing and reporting

advanced proof (computerized proof is addressed in both the physical and the consistent
structure). Everything gadgets which could contain computerized proof ought to be
recognized over this interaction. DEFR ought to do an efficient inquiry of the crime location
to forestall neglecting little, covered up gadgets or material which appears to be unimportant
from the get-go. Likewise, DEFR ought to think about presence of stowed away proof as
virtual parts - for example Distributed computing. In the event of precariousness of specific
gadgets (their state might be dependent upon future developments over the long run), it is
important to focus on these gadgets while acquiring proof. The proper request of assortment
and resulting handling ought to limit conceivable harm to advanced evidence.77

B) Collection After the ID of gadgets that might contain advanced proof, these gadgets
are eliminated from their unique section and moved to the research center where they are
broken down and handled as the following step. The assortment cycle is consistently
recorded, including bundling and transport to the lab. Specialists really should likewise get
some other actual material which might be connected with the computerized information that
has been gathered (for example notes on paper which might contain passwords, supports and
power connectors for the gadgets and other equipment fundamental for getting advanced data
from the recognized gadgets).

C) Acquisition The underlying handling of computerized proof comprises predominantly

in creating a duplicate of the proof (for example the substance of a whole hard drive) and
archiving the strategies utilized. If important, dispensed and as well as unallocated space
77
Supra note 40.

46
(counting erased documents) ought to be gotten. By and large, the first and any duplicates
thereof ought to produce a similar result (hash) of a similar confirmation work (demonstrated
precise by then). Contingent upon the conditions (circumstance, time, value), DEFR ought to
choose the most fitting technique and strategy for procuring information. If this cycle brings
about unavoidable changes in the made duplicate, when contrasted with unique, it is
important to archive what information was changed. In those cases in which confirmation
process can't be completed (for example while gaining information from a running
framework, when the first contains terrible section s, or when the ideal opportunity for
securing information is restricted), DEFR ought to utilize the most ideal way and afterward
have the option to legitimize and justify their selection of techniques. On the off chance that
the made computerized duplicate can't be checked, then, at that point, this should be archived
and legitimized. For the situation that the wellspring of advanced proof (information) is too
enormous to even think about taking care of, DEFR can get just the pertinent part (chose
documents, envelopes or ways).

D) Preservation of proof is the key part of every criminal examination, and proof connecting
with a PC framework is positively no exemption. There is no deviation from these essential
standards of proof, whatever the type of proof. As proof is gathered, the following testing
stage towards achieving its validity is that it should be safeguarded in an express that might
be shielded in an official courtroom. As referenced earlier, chain of guardianship is a
significant standard to be agreed upon for acceptability of electronic proof in the court. The
reason for a chain of guardianship log is to demonstrate that the respectability of the proof
has been held flawless right back from holding onto the gadget being referred to through
extraction of proof till the equivalent is created under the steady gaze of the court. It is
significant not exclusively to report what is being gathered, yet who is engaged with the
assortment cycle, when it was gathered, and different subtleties that could be instrumental in
approving the proof. The chain of guardianship documentation gives itemized data in regards
to each period of the criminological strategy including assortment, transportation, stockpiling,
and general treatment of the electronic proof. In this way, safeguarding is the most common
way of making a chain of guardianship that starts preceding assortment and finishes when
proof is delivered under the steady gaze of the court. Any break or break in the chain of
authority might prompt inquiries connecting with the legitimacy of the proof.78

78
MALIK S. SULTAN, CRIMINAL TRIAL & INVESTIGATIONS (2013).

47
3.7 The ACPO Good Practice Guide for Computer Based Evidence
There are various distributed rules that current basic standards for dealing with advanced
proof and that can assist computerized specialists with creating crime locations and taking
care of conventions to meet their particular necessities. One of the most developed and
common sense rule records is the Good Practice Guide for Computer Based Evidence
(ACPO, 2009). This guide was initially evolved by the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO) in the United Kingdom and, in later years, involved a computerized measurable
consultancy called 7safe. This was trailed by ACPO Good Practice Guide for Digital
Evidence (March 2012, v5). The ACPO Guide sets out four fundamental stages for taking
care of proof - assortment, assessment, examination, and detailing, with an accentuation on
the phase of collection. coming up next are a portion of the features of the Guide: I. The focal
point of these rules is to assist the advanced agents with taking care of the most widely
recognized types of computerized proof, including work section s, PCs, and cell phones. This
record likewise gives some direction and layout structures for the underlying scientific
assessment of a PC and examines the method involved with making a precise duplicate of a
plate, providing specialists with an extreme method for normalizing this significant part of a
computerized examination. ii. It ought to be borne as a top priority that computerized proof
comes in many structures including review trails, application logs, biometric information,
application metadata, Internet specialist organization logs, interruption location framework
reports, firewall logs, network traffic, data set items and exchange records and so on. The
ACPO Guide takes note that there are a rising number of cell phones, smaller than expected
PCs, convenient media players, and gaming consoles that can contain computerized proof.
Such implanted frameworks present difficulties from a legal stance and may require specific
handling that is past the extent of a solitary arrangement of rules. iii. Computerized gadgets
and media ought not be seized because there will be there. The individual accountable for the
inquiry should have sensible grounds to eliminate property and there should be legitimate
explanations behind doing as such. Due respect should be given to the essential instruments
for security of common liberties. iv. There are likewise cases including restrictive
frameworks, high-accessibility servers, enormous capacity frameworks, and proof spread
over an organization that current novel difficulties for computerized examiners, and will
require particular strategies and instruments. Considering this assortment, finding and
replicating all of the accessible computerized proof are testing errands, and circumstances
that are not covered by any system will emerge. For this reason it is vital to foster a strong
comprehension of criminological science and to leam through experience how to

48
imaginatively apply general standards. It is likewise really difficult for a computerized
examiner to be prepared for each innovation and circumstance. Nobody individual can know
it all, and it is essential to know when to look for help. A part in the ACPO Guide is
committed to the requirement for, and evaluation of, experts to help with computerized
examinations. As a rule report can't address all possibilities in any computerized examination,
there is by and large a proviso that various conditions might require substitute methodologies
not shrouded in the aide. This proviso is significant not exclusively to urge computerized
specialists to consider new ideas while managing novel and extraordinary circumstances, yet
in addition to keeping somebody from reprimanding fundamental, legitimate activities
essentially on the grounds that they are not shrouded in a rule report. The ACPO Guide is one
of only a handful of exceptional distributed reports that make a legitimate qualification
between measurable 'assessment' and 'investigation', making sense of that assessment
interaction "assists with making the proof noticeable and make sense of its starting point and
importance… . When all the data is apparent, the course of information decrease can start
accordingly isolating the 'goods worth keeping' from the 'refuse.' Given the gigantic measure
of data that can be put away on electronic media, this piece of the assessment is basic." The
aide proceeds to express that criminological examination "contrasts from assessment in that it
checks out at the result of the assessment for its importance promotion probative worth to the
case.

3.7.1 Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders:

The U.S. Division of Justice (USDOJ, 2001)
One more significant advancement in regards to definition of rules for directing electronic
crime location examination by policing is the Guide for First Responders on Electronic Crime
Scene Investigation made by the U.S. Branch of Justice (USDOJ). The target of these rules is
to help State and neighbourhood police other people on call who might be liable for
protecting an electronic crime location and for perceiving, gathering, and shielding advanced
proof. It is worth focusing on that these International Standards should be in consistence with
the home grown regulations and guidelines. These norms may likewise work with trade of
advanced proof among different locales. Genuinely honest since upkeep is a vital issue in
computerized proof, the partners are expected to adjust and revise the methods depicted in
these guidelines as per the particular purview's lawful prerequisites for proof.79

79
NILAKSHI JAIN & DHANANJAY R. KALBANDE, DIGITAL FORENSIC: THE FASCINATING WORLD
OF DIGITAL EVIDENCES (2017)

49
3.7.2 Guidelines on Cyber-Crime Investigation in India
With the huge expansion in the crimes on the internet, the regulations in India have likewise
gone through changes to working with examination of PC related wrongdoings in India. The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives the groundwork of examination by police in a crime.
With the corrections brought through the Information Technology Act, 2000, it has turned
into a basic for the policing to adjust to the evolving situation. The remarkable component of
cybercrime has shown the customary procedural regulations to be fruitless or insufficient
prompting exoneration of people associated with wrongdoing. The indictment of such
wrongdoings mirrors the way that the issues are connected with preliminary interaction, yet
additionally the assortment of proof. Likewise, taking care of PC related wrongdoings
requires a legitimate lawful system, specialized foundation for examination of digital
criminological information, a prepared police labor force, and investigators and judges
knowing about digital scientific devices for catching proof from the location of crime. Such
proof might be found anyplace in the nation or outside the country. The utilization of present
day innovation has changed over customary wrongdoing into a worldwide peculiarity,
making examination more troublesome and complex. Accordingly, there is a critical spotlight
on limited working for the exploring offices in India to handle this developing threat.
Throughout the long term, the exploring offices in India have encountered various
circumstances as to cybercrime examination. Because of these encounters, different
endeavors have been produced using time to time to plan explicit rules to help the cops
handle such wrongdoing circumstances all the more real.

3.8 Challenges in handling electronic evidence

During the time spent taking care of electronic proof, the agents track down it is unclear and
troublesome to recognize the legitimate methodology, as it fluctuates from one state to
another. A few states have been extremely unbending as far as figuring out strategy in regards
to looking without warrant. In United States v. Park80, the court dominated: "since PDAs can
hold a more noteworthy amount of information than pagers, its items are doubtful to be lost; a
warrantless wireless pursuit is consequently superfluous and ridiculous." Similarly, in United
States v. Wall81, that's what the court concluded: "looking through data put away on a cell is
closely resembling a hunt of a fixed letter". On many events, the examiners could get a court
order given by the court to complete a pursuit; in any case, the proof may not merit
introduction under the steady gaze of the court because of disappointment in the scientific
80
421 U.S. 658 (1975).
81
225 F.3d 858 (2000).

50
method to consent to the lawful strategy. For instance, glancing through unopened mail and
uninitiated texts or not cautiously reporting the chain of care might comprise an inappropriate
hunt. With jurisdictional constraints and irregularities in lawful systems, it has become truly
challenging for examiners to do the examination powerfully.82

3.9 An Empirical Study of Cyber Cell in Gurgaon

An Empirical review was led on Cyber Cells in Delhi NCR. The subtleties of the review with
respect to the difficulties experienced by the policing are given underneath: The crucial
standard of acceptability guarantees that "a proof, to be permissible in court, should be
significant, material and equipped, and its probative worth should offset any biased impact.
Computerized proof isn't novel as to significance and materiality, but since it very well may
be handily copied and changed, frequently without leaving any follows, advanced proof can
introduce unique issues connected with competency." Hence, absolute attention to detail must
be taken while doing a scientific examination to introduce its discoveries under the watchful
eye of the official courtroom. Here comes the significant job to be played by the examining
organization. Guarantee legitimate assortment of electronic information and keep an
unmistakable chain of care right from the location of crime till its shown under the watchful
eye of the court. At the end of the day, a chain of guardianship is an aide that shows how
proof was gathered, dissected and properly protected for show under the watchful eye of the
court. For electronic proof, keeping an unmistakable chain of guardianship is extremely
critical as it is considered normal subject to modification. An unmistakable chain of care is a
genuine show of the way that the electronic proof being referred to has credibility.68 without
even a trace of a substantial PC criminological method, the examining organizations wind up
seizing or gathering electronic data insufficiently. The criminological specialists make
pictures or cloning of the first electronic record (safeguarding the first), protect, investigate
and introduce them. Also, the servers of the new times have gigantic recollections
approaching terabytes, and making pictures of the whole memory isn't basically imaginable
all of the time. The log documents of the servers and switches are exceptionally urgent in PC
measurable assessment. As a matter of fact, such assessment is a lot of ward on the
collaboration of the server and organization chairmen, who might be situated inside or
outside the country. There is no strategy or rule to manage the entire interaction. The
specialists follow their interior manual/rules to do such methodology which fluctuates from
case to case. A portion of the difficulties recognized during the cycle is as per the following:

82
NISHESH SHARMA, CYBER FORENSICS IN INDIA: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE (2017)

51
a) Lack of uniform measurable procedural guidelines

b) Difficulty in making scientific pictures/cloning

c) Possibility of altering of data d) Handling of different papers for legal methodology

e) Problems in unraveling scrambled information

f) Ignorance among the scientific specialized specialists about the standards of proof to be
agreed with.

g) Failure of the legal executive to see the value in the results of the PC measurable
examination.

It is fascinating to take note of that in India, the PC measurable examinations occur in the
Central Forensic Laboratories (CFSLs) and General of Questioned Documents at Chandigarh,
Hyderabad, Kolkata and Shimla, and CFSL, CBI at New Delhi. Even though most States
have PC criminological units, they are a lot of wards on the PC legal cells of the focal
research facilities. Moreover, there are various apparatuses for assortment/capture of
electronic records accessible on the lookout. A portion of these instruments is obtained and
utilized by a couple of police. The issue lies in the way that exploring organizations isn't
certain about whether these are standard apparatuses for assessment. Police or exploring
organizations are additionally not mindful of their source codes, making them challengeable
in court. Because of absence of specialized information, they neglect to counter them under
the steady gaze of the court. In any case, it is likewise to be remembered that despite the fact
that thorough and methodical techniques are utilized to have a careful assessment of the PC
or different gadgets being referred to, PC legal sciences likewise require adaptability and
creative abilities with respect to the examiner for dealing with strange situations. Thus, the
policing might be viewed as the nodal point of the whole criminal examination process right
from assortment of information till they are delivered under the steady gaze of the court.
Their job turns out to be more vital when the proof to be gathered is immaterial and includes
specialized information like managing electronic records. To guarantee the trustworthiness of
electronic proof accessible at the location of crime, the policing need to go through
fundamental preparation so the quintessence of such proof isn't compromised at any stage, be
it assortment, conservation or show of something similar. Occurrences can be found in India
where the policing have neglected to lead legitimate PC measurable activities.83

83
. PAUL R. RICE, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: LAW AND PRACTICE (2005)

52
 This has brought about unfortunate suitability of proof in the courts. Without even a trace of
a substantial PC measurable technique, the researching offices wind up seizing or gathering
electronic data deficiently. "A portion of the new situations where successful digital legal
sciences might have been utilized are E-Bay's digital break case, Enforcement Directorate's
Bitcoins examination case, Aarushi's homicide case by CBI, IPL match fixing case, Nokia's
product download case, and so forth. The rundown is simply extending as instances of ill-
advised digital criminology examinations are in overflow in India." Lack of due care and
thoughtfulness regarding the lawful guidelines encompassing the assortment and utilizations
of advanced proof can not just make the proof useless, it can leave agents helpless against
obligation in countersuits. In Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc 84, the court
thought of specific tests to aid the assurance of unwavering quality of logical proof.
Tragically, the field of PC legal sciences is yet to be a basic piece of any criminal
examination in India. On many events, the customary guidelines of proof go about as
deterrent towards conceding electronic proof under the steady gaze of the official courtroom.
It is, subsequently, exceptionally appropriate to fundamentally look at the provokes engaged
with this section to guarantee better acceptability of PC based proof. Different examination
studies have been embraced at the drive of lawful specialists as well as specialized specialists
in India and different nations, which have featured the legitimate and specialized difficulties
in resolving the issue of suitability. Many examinations have been led to investigate
suitability of electronic proof in India which rotates around the principles of proof without
thinking about the mechanical perspectives. Nonetheless, it is similarly critical that the
suitability relies upon a comprehension of the PC criminological methodology inside the
current legitimate structure for acceptability of proof and their difficulties, which would work
with the policing to have adequate knowledge to handle new electronic proof. There is no
question about the way that PC criminological system in India is yet to acquire perceivability
and get smoothed out. The nation is yet to have digital wrongdoing examination best
practices. Further, digital wrongdoings examination capacities in India are likewise in an
unfortunate state. There is no satisfactory foundation for managing wrongdoings including
innovation. During an observational review directed to comprehend the hierarchical design
and working of digital cells, a portion of the pivotal issues was raised by the authorities of the
digital cells who manage digital wrongdoing examination consistently.85

84
509 U.S. 579 (1993).
85
PAVAN DUGGAL, JUDICIAL AND PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE LAW IN
INDIA (2015)

53
3.10 Perceptions
For ideal use of PC measurable system, the law should stay up with mechanical progressions.
Clear and predictable lawful methods in regards to PC framework look should be grown so
that police and specialists can be appropriately prepared. An International Code of Ethics for
Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism ought to likewise be laid out to foster conventions for
"getting and saving proof, keeping up with the chain of guardianship of that proof across
borders," and "clear[ing] up any distinction in language issues." Following these actions
might be the initial steps to settling the mechanical and legitimate limits distressing PC
criminology. Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, has fostered a
Computer Crime Manual with "instructional classes" and "a quick data trade framework" that
fills in as an establishment for worldwide collaboration. Finally, the crook maltreatment of
innovation can be restricted by furnishing the police division with cutting edge preparation
and gear for criminological examination. Really at that time is the world securely ready to
confront the eventual fate of innovation.

3.11 Procurement of Electronic Evidence: Need for Standardization of

Process
Considering the assorted difficulties in the proof assortment process, the improvement of an
International Standard is a lengthy cycle that requires numerous assets. In many cases, the
requirement for explicit point normalization is just distinguished long after a particular
innovation has been acquainted with industry. Notwithstanding this poor start of the
normalization cycle, the typical timetable for fostering a global standard is around three
years. It is subsequently suggested that individuals from explicit enterprises proactively
recognize section s of concern and channel this data at a beginning phase to the particular part
bodies. This can accelerate the cycle and possibly have the International Standard set up
when the innovation is as its pinnacle and needs worldwide normalization. Each crime
location connecting with PC based proof presents remarkable difficulties, and computerized
specialists should have the option to adjust legal science standards inventively to new
circumstances. Simultaneously, the exploring organizations have developed standard working
methodology (SOPs) for managing examination of assortments of wrongdoing. Such systems
should be in congruity with the major standards of legal science to guarantee that proof is
gathered, protected and examined in a steady way. Such textures are important to stay away
from blunders in the proof assortment and protection process prompting prohibition. This is
likewise to guarantee that the most ideal that anyone could hope to find strategies for

54
assortment and conservation is applied, and accordingly to expand the likelihood that two
criminological analysts would arrive at similar resolutions in analyzing the proof.86

86
Ibid.

55
Chapter 4

ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGES

BEFORE THE JUDICIARY

The twenty-first century has seen a transformation in the section of innovation which has
spellbound India as well as the whole world. The utilization of PCs isn't simply restricted to
laid out associations or establishments yet in addition accessible to each person in an
assortment of helpful ways. The use of Information Technology has worked on pretty much
every movement including individuals. In this time of digital world, with the expansion in the
use of PCs, the innovation has additionally developed essentially. The advancement of
Information Technology has made the virtual universe of the internet wherein web associates
the entire world and guarantees equivalent open doors to everybody to get to any data with
the utilization of high innovation. This rising dependence on computerized universe of
correspondences, web based business and capacity of data in computerized structure has
unquestionably worked with a change of the law connecting with data innovation and rules of
tolerability of electronic proof both in common and criminal matters in India.87

Most of the reports, today, are either put away on or produced by PCs, among which an
assortment of electronic information have been conceded in the court as proof. This
incorporates items in sites, messages, instant messages, texts, computerized photographs, and
upgraded pictures and so on. In many events, the legal executive has had one or two doubts in
conceding such proof, communicating that there is a need for new principles to manage the
new proof rotating such proof. Under such conditions, it would be fitting to resolve the
normally raised issues by the courts as to electronic proof, for example, validation, prattle,
and rule of best proof etc. The broad utilization of PCs and the effect of data innovation and
correspondence on the general public overall, alongside the capacity to store data in a
computerized structure have without a doubt prompted fundamental corrections in Indian
regulation to consolidate the arrangements on the acknowledgment and suitability of
electronic proof. The Information Technology (IT) Act, 20004 and its corrected arrangements
depend on UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model
Law on Electronic Commerce. The IT Act 2000 was altered to work with the suitability of
87
Stefan Fafinski, “Access Denied: Computer Misuse In An Era of Technological Change”, 70(5) J. OF CRIM.
L. 424, 430 (2006).

56
electronic proof. This Act accommodates the treating of reports delivered electronically on a
standard with composed, printed or typewritten records. The Act likewise got massive
changes the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Banker's Book
Evidence Act 1891 to give the regulative structure to exchanges in electronic structure or
media. With this evolving situation, the courts in India have likewise begun depending on
electronic proof by creating case regulations. Judges have additionally deciphered the
characteristic 'electronic' nature of proof, which incorporates understanding in regards to the
suitability of such proof, and the translation of the law comparable to how electronic proof
can be brought and created under the watchful eye of the court. It has been a laid out rule that
the agreeableness of any computerized or electronic proof relies on its significance and
legitimacy. It is likewise expected to lay out if the truth of the matter is noise or a duplicate is
liked to the first. Advanced Evidence is "data of probative worth that is put away or
communicated in twofold structure". Not at all like other actual proof, finding the suitable
proof is itself a test simultaneously. It is to be noticed that proof isn't simply restricted to PC
frameworks, yet additionally other electronic gadgets, for example, media transmission or
electronic sight and sound devices. While alluding to demonstrating an electronic report in
the court, an inquiry frequently emerges concerning why an electronic record isn't imprinted
on a paper so the equivalent can be delivered as a paper archive with the end goal of
assessment during preliminary. Specialists have alluded to something like three essential
purposes behind not changing over electronic reports into a paper records:88

In the first place, each electronic report conveys data joined to it, which may not be apparent
in the essence of the record, or might be lost when it is switched over completely to a paper
structure. Such data is known as metadata for example essential data about information. At
the end of the day, the metadata of an electronic record isn't reflected in a basic printout.
Metadata is differently characterized as "data concerning report creation and change" or "data
made by the working framework or application about a record that permits the working
framework or application to store and recover the document at a later date". Second, the issue
of suitability on account of an electronic report includes various difficulties from some other
reports. An electronic report, similar to a paper record, can be utilized as proof to demonstrate
the reality of the items in the report, or it tends to be utilized as genuine proof to show the
presence of the information or who had ownership of the information. The essential guideline
of suitability likewise applies to both paper and electronic archives: that is, while endeavoring
88
RAM JETHMALANI, D.S. CHOPRA, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE: COMMENTARY ON EVIDENCE ACT,
1872 (2013)

57
to enter proof into the preliminary record, it should be demonstrated that the report is
applicable, bona fide and dependable. In addition, electronic records, similar to paper reports
that are presented, should adjust to the best proof rule, and if it is being utilized to
demonstrate the reality of its items, it should not disregard the standard against prattle to be
considered admissible. One of the principal decides of suitability is that to be permissible, an
archive should be validated. The validation cycle tries to decide the validity of a report.
Whether or not electronic proof is utilized as genuine proof or to demonstrate the reality of its
items, the electronic record should be shown to be authentic. The weight of demonstrating the
credibility of the electronic record lies on the individual who wishes to present it. While
considering the genuineness of a report, the innate chance of modification or altering of
electronic records becomes pivotal. An electronic record, that contains an explanation that
should be acknowledged as proof to demonstrate the instance of indictment, becomes
inadmissible assuming the protection persuades the court that the items in the report were
changed, deliberately or unexpectedly, with the end goal that the court can't acknowledge its
items to be valid.89

Third, this additionally includes cost of creation and preliminary. Keeping in view that the
majority of the proof produced today is in electronic structure, litigators need to figure out
how to manage it proficiently, cost-successfully and with a psyche to getting it conceded at
preliminary.

4.1 Idea OF Admissibility

In an ill-disposed arrangement of preliminary, a definitive goal of introducing proof is to help
the adjudicator to come to a sane end result with respect to a reality in question. Thusly, it
turns out to be exceptionally significant to decide the proof to be created under the watchful
eye of the appointed authority for him/her to come to an end result. There are sure qualities
which are ascribed to any proof to be qualified for creation under the steady gaze of the court.
Suitability is one of the qualities of proof, which decides the weightage to be given to a piece
of proof. As per the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 'suitability' can be characterized
as "deserving of being acknowledged or thought of. Kanellis makes sense of that any sort of
proof contains two parts: right off the bat, the legitimate prerequisites for suitability under the
current law of proof; and, furthermore, the material necessities, which are worried about the
validity of proof introduced in a case. For any proof to be permissible under the steady gaze
of the courtroom, it should be important, material and skilled. A piece of proof, which is
89
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (2018)

58
significant, should have a sensible propensity to work with demonstrating or invalidating a
reality. It need not make the reality certain, however it should will generally improve or
diminish the probability of some reality. When pertinent proof is conceded by the court
subsequent to guaranteeing consistence with the current principles, the court will decide the
suitable load to be given to a specific piece of proof. A given piece of proof is viewed as
material in the event that it is proposed to demonstrate a reality that is in debate for a
situation. Proof is thought of "skilled" assuming that it conforms to specific conventional
ideas of dependability. Courts are slowly decreasing the skill rules of proof by making them
issues connected with the heaviness of evidence. Evidence is either acceptable or forbidden.
Permissible proof is the proof that agrees with all administrative and legal prerequisites, and
has been accurately acquired and taken care of. Permissible proof is any report, declaration,
or unmistakable proof utilized in a courtroom. The two fastest techniques to guarantee that
proof won't be acceptable in court are gathering it unlawfully, or adjusting the proof after it
has come into the ownership of the specialist/inspector. The suitability of a report is a certain
something and its probative worth another - these two perspectives can't be consolidated. A
report might be permissible and may not convey any conviction and weight, or its probative
worth might be nil. A record might be acceptable, however with respect to whether the
section contained in that has any probative worth might in any case be expected to be
analyzed in current realities and conditions of a specific case. The genuineness of the sections
in the authority record by an authority or individual approved in execution of true obligations
would rely upon whose data such passages stood recorded and what was his wellspring of
data. The section in the school register/School Leaving Certificate expects to be demonstrated
as per regulation and the norm of verification expected in such cases continued as before as in
some other common or criminal cases. Admissibility and significance are the two significant
terms in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Hereinafter alluded to as 'the Act'). The word
'suitability' is no place characterized except for 'importance' is characterized in the Act. The
principles of importance are set down between Sections 5 - 55 of the Act. These principles
give the rules respect regardless of whether reality is a significant truth. Regardless of the
proof framework, the normal technique for finding reality assumes a significant part, taking
everything into account. In this manner, the suitability of realities helps in concluding
whether a specific piece of proof would work in resolving any question including regulation.
The suitability of proof is an issue of regulation and it is passed on to the tact of the Judge
according to Section 136 of the Act. Tolerability depends on regulation and not rationale.
Realities which might have no legitimate significance may some of the time be permissible in
59
courts. as such, when a reality is associated with another reality, they are viewed as sensibly
important. Where an intelligently pertinent reality is perceived by regulation, it turns out to be
legitimately important, and such realities are typically permissible under the steady gaze of
the court. The Supreme Court of India on account of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar 90
held that in a large portion of the cases, the two terms 'suitability' and 'importance' are utilized
reciprocally with one, however their lawful ramifications shift from one another.91

4.2 Principles of admissibility of scientific evidence in courts

Legal science for example the use of logical information in criminal examination, today, is an
essential piece of law enforcement framework, and plays a vital part to play in removing or
breaking down logical proof under the steady gaze of the court. In the evolving situation, the
Indian Judiciary has likewise depended upon criminological science generally in settling
legitimate questions. As needs are, the law of proof has likewise been corrected now and
again to oblige such proof inside the domain of acceptability. From one viewpoint, utilization
of logical proof and use of different logical strategies to remove proof in criminal indictment
has, without a doubt, been working with a compelling criminal examination process; then
again, the dependability and suitability of such proof in the court have been a test. The
improvement of logical and specialized master declarations in the complicated and
specialized issues has overflowed the legal framework in the new times. Simultaneously, the
topic of its dependability and tolerability has additionally tormented the courts and animated
a lot of discussions. The issue of acceptability has drawn the consideration of endless
analysts. A few articles have investigated the subject and offered contentions supporting
more prominent or lesser obstructions to the suitability of logical master proof. In the United
States (US), different suitability guidelines are advanced occasionally to validate logical
proof. The legal executive has taken on exceptional standards administering the tolerability of
logical proof. The most well-known unique rule is the 'general acknowledgment standard.' as
well as satisfying the conventional prerequisites of significance, the defender under the
overall acknowledgment standard should show general acknowledgment of the guideline or
strategy in the logical community. Historically, the idea of deciding if a specialist's
declaration is permissible or not traces back to an exceptional rule beginning in 1923 with the
choice of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Frye v. Joined States.
The Frye test had two viewpoints - right off the bat, the standard or logical strategy and
besides, the acknowledgment. Otherwise called the general acknowledgment test, it is a test
90
AIR 1998 SC 1850.
91
Ibid.

60
to decide the suitability of logical proof. It gives that a well-qualified assessment in light of a
logical procedure is permissible under the steady gaze of the court just when the method is
for the most part acknowledged as solid among mainstream researchers. This test,
notwithstanding, was scrutinized on the accompanying grounds - I) that there should be an
extensive delay for the logical strategy to be acknowledged by the local section , ii) More
confidence is rested on established researchers than in the Court of Law. Ensuing to this,
Rule 702 of The Federal Rules of Evidence (1975) was presented for suitability of logical
evidence. However, Rule 702 neither incorporated the Frye standard nor made a notice of the
overall acknowledgment standard. On June 28, 1993, the US Supreme Court offered its most
memorable huge proclamation in a milestone judgment in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceutical92, where explicit rules were given to settle the suitability issue of logical
proof by and large. The Court held that overall acknowledgment was not a precondition to
suitability of logical proof under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court likewise certified
that the preliminary adjudicator had position to safeguard that a given master's declaration
will be dependable and pertinent. This, truth be told, marks a shift towards additional
adaptable guidelines in regards to the suitability of logical evidence. In Daubert, the Court set
out the accompanying standards for suitability of logical proof: • Whether the hypothesis or
procedure utilized by the master can be (and has been) tried. • The known or expected pace of
mistakes related with the hypothesis or procedure, • The presence and support of norms
controlling the strategy's activity. • Whether the hypothesis or strategy has been exposed to
peer survey and distribution • Whether the hypothesis or procedure appreciates far reaching
acknowledgment The Supreme Court's decision on Daubert is significant to the suitability of
master declaration in that it gives a definite system to help the appointed authority while
deciding the pertinence and unwavering quality after hearing proof. Notwithstanding
Daubert, in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael93 , the Supreme Court of the United States set the
law of master declaration on a journey for "dependability." These choices, as well as the
resulting change of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, clarify that preliminary adjudicators are to
play out a "gatekeeping" work, sifting through offered declaration when the mastery on
which it is based, whether logical etc., isn't reliable. Rule 702 now gives: If logical,
specialized, or other particular information will help the trier of truth to figure out the proof
or to decide a reality in issue, an observer qualified as a specialist by information, expertise,
experience, preparing, or training, may affirm thereto as an assessment etc., if (1) the

92
509 U.S. 579 (1993).
93
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2007.

61
declaration depends on adequate realities or information, (2) the declaration is the result of
solid standards and strategies, and (3) the observer has applied the standards and techniques
dependably to current realities of the case.

In Rajli @ Rajjo v. Kapoor Singh94, The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the
unwavering quality of the logical proof relies on three factors; the legitimacy of the
fundamental logical guideline; the legitimacy of the strategy applying the standard ; and the
legitimate use of the method on a specific event. Suitability of logical proof has been a
disputable issue in India since long particularly post Selvi v. State of Karnataka 95, where the
Supreme Court communicated the difficulty of suitability of logical proof in the
accompanying words: "with regards to criminal cases, the dependability of logical proof
bears a causal connection with a few components of the right to a fair preliminary, for
example, the essential norm of demonstrating responsibility for certain and the right of the
blamed to introduce a guard. We should be aware of the way that these prerequisites have for
quite some time been perceived as parts of 'individual freedom' under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Subsequently assembling a few experiences about the suitability of logical
evidence will be informative.96

4.3 Admissiblity of electronic evidence

Because of critical development in e-administration openly as well as confidential space,
electronic proof has arisen as one of the major bases for cases, both common and criminal.
During preliminary procedures, judges are frequently stood up to with the subject of
deciphering rules on acceptability of electronic proof, which affects the result of common
claim or conviction/absolution of the denounced. The court needs to go up against this new
type of proof, as the simplicity with which such proof can be controlled, makes obstacles to
acceptability not at all like different types of proof. The different types of electronic proof,
for example, information from sites, correspondences via web-based entertainment,
messages, texts, PC-produced reports and so on make novel issues and difficulties for
appropriate confirmation. Given the general terms in which rules of proof well-spoken the
principles for suitability, it is once in a while hard to resolve with regards to how much
verification is expected to concede a specific piece of electronic proof.

94
CR No. 5090 of 2012.
95
2010(7) SCC 263.
96
REBECCA MERCURI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE CHALLENGES IN COMPUTER FORENSICS, (2010)

62
4.4 Norms Of admissibility: the united states
It has been a generally acknowledged reality that the standards set down in Daubert31 are
viewed as standard for suitability of electronic proof. Nonetheless, electronic proof actually
may need to run over numerous hindrances concerning the assortment, conservation,
handling and show of the proof. PCs, today, have tremendous measures of information
stockpiling. The policing deal with a curious issue of finding pertinent data connecting with
criminal examination from an immense stockpiling of information, which incorporate photos,
recordings, messages, talk logs and so forth as it very well may be incredibly time-consume.
Legitimate dealing with and handling by a PC crime scene investigation master ought to wipe
out issues that could influence suitability of proof. Since the idea of electronic proof is
delicate and it very well may be effortlessly changed, the tolerability of electronic proof has
consistently stayed an easily proven wrong issue. Taking everything into account, the US
courts have been conceding PC records as proof since the 1970s when the utilization of PC
frameworks was restricted exclusively to a couple of organizations and some private use. The
fundamental principle for conceding electronic proof was on the connection between the data
and the PC. Reports were conceded in light of the suspicion that any data created by a PC has
the greatest realness. In any case, with the massive change in the idea of advanced proof in
the contemporary times, customary standards for PC records may presently not be sufficient
to address the intricacies of current electronic hardware from which electronic proof is
produced, because it is a lot simpler to make computerized data which is dependent upon
future developments with next to no location. To verify computerized proof in the
contemporary time, center should be more around the critical parts of a data framework:
People — Process — Technology. While laying out the honesty of electronic records, the
accompanying variables are to be thought of: who made the proof, what innovation was
utilized to gather, save and dissect the information, and what was the chain of care all through
the whole advanced proof lifecycle. It is lamentable that the inability to comprehend the
method for validating electronic proof has brought about unfriendly decisions by the courts in
the United States. For instance, in Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. 97, the court
denied a motion for outline judgment because of disappointment in giving permissible proof
and appropriately verifying PC based proof. In Vinhnee v. American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc.98, the court of requests certified the preliminary court's choice not to

97
241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007).
98
336 B.R. 437 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005).

63
concede automated records in light of the absence of validation of records to be conceded
under the steady gaze of the court. 99

4.5 Norms Of admissibility: the Indian scenario

In India, electronic proof has been characterized inside the domain of 'report' and was treated
as auxiliary proof. Electronic proof was validated through a certificate by a capable power. In
this cycle, the circumstances set down in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 were to be appropriately consented to. In any case, with the approaching into
power of the alterations in Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as the Indian Evidence
Act, more accentuation was laid on electronic records as proof. The law connecting with
acceptability of electronic proof was returned and explicit models were set down to satisfy
the states of realness and dependability. Likewise, the two lawful arrangements Sections 65A
and 65B were embedded in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to manage the issue of suitability
of electronic proof. Because of such changes in the nature and type of proof, the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 was corrected via Section 92 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
(hereinafter alluded to as IT Act). Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter
alluded to as the Evidence Act) was changed to incorporate electronic records as a piece of
"reports" to be named as narrative proof. Essentially, 'electronic records' was likewise
embedded in Section 59 of Indian Evidence Act to incorporate electronic proof as a piece of
'items in reports'. The standards of suitability for electronic proof were presented through
Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act. Section s 61 to 65 of the Evidence Act manage
essential and auxiliary proof. It is worth focusing on that in the previously mentioned
arrangements, the expression 'record or content of reports' poor person has been supplanted
by the expression 'electronic archives or content of electronic archives'. This demonstrates the
way that the expectation of the assembly is not to broaden the materialness of Sections 61 to
65 to the electronic record. The fundamental goal of presenting explicit arrangements for the
acceptability of electronic proof is that all proof in electronic structure is profoundly
specialized, and such proof can't be delivered in that frame of mind of regulation because of
the trouble in conveying the PCs or servers. In addition, it expects translators to peruse the
machine language. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act sets down he manages connecting with
tolerability of electronic proof as optional proof as PC yield containing the print out or
information duplicated on electronic/attractive media. Section 65-B might be separated into
four parts. (1) The main part sets out the standard that any electronic record imprinted on a

99
SIR JOHN WOODROFFE & AMIR ALI, LAW OF EVIDENCE (2013)

64
paper, put away, recorded or duplicated in optical or attractive media delivered by a PC, will
be considered to be a report as characterized under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, dependent upon satisfaction of specific circumstances. When the circumstances are
satisfied, it doesn't need additional evidence or creation of the first. (2) The second part of
Section 65-B alludes to the circumstances to be satisfied for acceptability of electronic proof.
Following are the circumstances: (a) The PC from which the record is created has probably
has been in customary use to store or handle data. (b) The action has probably been routinely
carried on in the gadget by an individual having legal command over the period. (c) The
action should connect with the period over which the PC was routinely utilized. (d) The data
being referred to was taken care of in PC in the standard course of the exercises of the
individual having legal command over the PC. (e) The PC was working appropriately during
the particular time frame being referred to. (3) The third part centers around what comprises a
solitary PC: (a) A blend of PCs working over that period. (b) Different PCs working in
progression over that period. (c) Different blends of PCs working in progression over that
period. The arrangements perceive the evidentiary worth of any data imprinted on paper or
put away in a minimized circle, or comparative gadget subject to the satisfaction of the Sub-
section (4) of section 65B of the Evidence Act which gives extra non-specialized qualifying
conditions to lay out the legitimacy of electronic proof. This arrangement expects that an
endorsement will be delivered by a senior individual having liability of the PC which has
made and put away the electronic record. The testament should exceptionally recognize the
first electronic record, portray the way of its creation, depict the gadget that made it, and
guarantees consistence with the mechanical states of sub-section (2) of section 65B. In 2014,
the Supreme Court of India thought of a ruling characterizing the extent of section 65B,
where the court has set out that section 65B is an exceptional arrangement and is not quite the
same as sections 63 and 65 in regard to optional evidence. It is worth focusing on that
development of endorsement is a test in those cases, where the PC or any electronic gadget is
in the ownership of the unfriendly party. 100

This matter has been brought before the Judiciary, where endeavors are being perceived to
make the principles more adaptable. What's more, the far and wide utilization of cell phones
has led to different difficulties in legal actions as the courts choose the issue of the
confirmation of computerized data in the radiance of legal proclamations and legitimate
arrangements. Disregarding the way that the US has currently set up deep rooted lawful

100
SIR JOHN WOODROFFE & AMIR ALI, LAW OF EVIDENCE (2013)

65
standards for acceptability of proof, their pertinence to different electronic records brings
difficulties up in evidentiary issues. In this manner, courts have wound up applying various
principles for comparable kinds of proof in the event of creation of PC related proof under the
watchful eye of the court. It is the essential obligation of the court to guarantee that the proof
to be delivered under the steady gaze of the court would work with sections of strength for
settling on a choice for a situation. Suitability, a central rule of proof, is a bunch of tests done
by an appointed authority to survey a piece of proof. Such course of evaluation might become
testing to the court on the off chance that the proof was not taken care of appropriately by the
policing or the chance of having such qualities in the proof that make it less solid or more
prejudicial. It is to be noticed that due to the immaterial person of such proof, many cases
don't for even a moment come to court as such proof gets compromised. It is, subsequently,
fundamental to guarantee that proof put away or created in a PC was gathered, saved and
communicated as per lawful necessities with respect to the suitability of the proof.

4.6 Rules on admissibility of electronically stored information: Lorraine v.

Markel American insurance co.
Various purviews have various guidelines of acceptability, some of which are formal and
unbendable, while others give more attentiveness to the appointed authorities. In 2007, on
account of Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., the Court spread out a portion of the
issues connecting with suitability of electronically putting away data and given overall rules
on a portion of the essential ways of submitting proof in the court. The case connects with the
topic of suitability of email messages. The proof was tested because of absence of realness in
the messages. Concluding the case, Judge Grimm perceived that to have evidentiary worth of
electronically put away information, a progression of evidentiary difficulties should be
survived. In such manner, reference was made to Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), to be
specific, Rules 104, 401, 901, 902, 801, 1001-1008 and rule 403.The court held that
unauthenticated messages comprise PC produced proof that outcome in evidential issues. It
featured four issues to be considered while deciding the acceptability of electronic proof -
importance of realities, verification, rule of prattle and the best proof rule and so on.101

4.7 Conceding Electronic evidence in court: challenges

Aside from the abovementioned, different issues that might keep electronic proof from being
conceded by courts are inappropriate treatment of proof and unlawful hunt and seizure. At
first, courts were more liberal in managing instances of ill-advised treatment of electronic

101
STEPHEN MASON, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (2010)

66
proof. Notwithstanding, with expanding number of such proof for each situation, the courts
have begun raising more difficulties with taking care of unlawful inquiry and capture of
proof.

(i) Search Warrants In a large portion of the cases connecting with electronic proof, the
proof is gotten without approval. To look and hold onto proof a court order should be given
by the court. Under the US Constitution, the Fourth Amendment gives the residents the
option to be secure from erratic issue of court order in a their people, houses, reports etc.46
for getting a warrant, the policing should give reasonable justification and different subtleties
of search and things to be seized. The examiners should persuade the court that an offense
has been committed and the proof is probably going to exist in the spot of search.47 In
instances of prompt mediation, it may not be imaginable to get a court order, as any defer in
the assortment of proof could bring about change or obliteration of evidence.48 Hence, it
very well might be important to hold onto the registering gadget quickly to decrease the
chance of annihilation of proof. When the computerized proof is saved, it is expected to get a
warrant to direct a scientific assessment. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
arrangements connecting with court order in criminal examination is given under Section 93
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which sets out that a legal official on sensible
grounds as set down in the arrangement, issue court order, determining the spot or report to
be looked. 102

(ii) Authentication of Digital Evidence After the securing of equipment, the information
recuperated from capacity gadgets should be validated before they are broken down.
Validation is the most common way of contrasting the first information and the duplicate or
imaged information to confirm that both are indistinguishable data. One of the essential
prerequisites under the steady gaze of the court is assuming the recuperated proof is
equivalent to the initially held onto information while considering the suitability of electronic
evidence. In request to lay out that computerized proof is credible, it is important to fulfill the
court that it was gathered from a particular PC, and the equivalent has stayed unaltered since
it was gathered. In this manner, the unwavering quality of electronic proof assumes a
significant part in the validation cycle. It is likewise similarly critical that a chain of care is
properly kept up with during the assortment and protection of proof till the equivalent is
created under the watchful eye of the court.

102
V. NAGESWARA RAO, THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (2015)

67
(iii) Reliability of Digital Evidence Reliability is one more vital part to decide the
legitimacy of electronic proof. Two general methodologies have been recognized normally to
survey whether electronic proof can be depended upon in court. The primary methodology is
to see whether the framework producing the proof was working typically at the hour of
recovering something similar. The other methodology is to analyze the genuine proof by
specialists to preclude any altering or harm to the proof gathered. The main methodology was
trailed by larger part of the regulation in the United States and United Kingdom to assess the
PC created records based on the unwavering quality of the framework and furthermore the
cycle that produced the records. For example, the section in the Federal Rules of Evidence
901 (b) (9) named "Prerequisite of Authentication or Identification incorporates "proof
depicting a cycle or framework used to deliver an outcome showing that the cycle or
framework creates a precise outcome." In the United Kingdom, under Section 69 of Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), there was a conventional necessity for a positive
declaration that the PC frameworks included were working appropriately. The Rationale
behind this approach lies in the way that such records are not for this approach that since
records of this are not corresponding to an assertion made by a human declarant, they ought
not be treated as gossip, yet rather their suitability ought not entirely set in stone based on the
dependability and precision of the cycle involved. It is worth focusing on that surveying the
unwavering quality of a PC system is troublesome. Aside from this, courts are additionally
not exceptional to survey the unwavering quality of PC frameworks and the cycles. This
conjures a trouble in guaranteeing a PC or a particular cycle, as they might glitch under
particular conditions experience unexpected blunders. Subsequently, it is accepted that the
frameworks were working appropriately at the hour of the commission of the offense.
Simultaneously, programs running in PC frameworks are dependent upon upgradation, it isn't
probably correct that a specific cycle on a particular framework worked similarly at the hour
of the commission of the offense. In a fascinating advancement with regards to 1997, the UK
Law Commission suggested cancelation of Section 69 of PACE as evaluating the
dependability of PC systems was troublesome. Furthermore, the arrangement likewise
required a confirmation of the framework, and it additionally neglected to address the central
point answerable for mistakes in electronic proof. In 2001, the arrangement was nearly
deserted with the exception of utilizing it to lay out unwavering quality of PC created
business records.103

103
V. P. SRIVASTAV, AN INTRODUCTION TO CYBER CRIME INVESTIGATION (2003)

68
(iv) Best Evidence Apart from laying out the items in a composition, recording or photo,
there are events when the dependence is likewise given the first proof. The defense behind
this standard was to guarantee that the court has concluded the case in light of most ideal that
anyone could hope to find proof of. The best proof is characterized as the most incredibly
complete duplicate, which incorporates every one of the pieces of the proof that are firmly
connected with the first evidence. With the approaching into reality of different mechanical
cycles, for example, printers, scanners, PCs and so on, which are equipped for making
indistinguishable duplicates as the first, such duplicates became OK to the court rather than
the first except if "a veritable inquiry is raised concerning the credibility of the first or the
precision of the duplicate or in light of the current situation, it would be out of line to concede
the duplicate in lieu of the original". as a matter of fact, introducing a duplicate of the
electronic proof is more alluring, as it maintains a strategic distance from the gamble of the
first getting changed unexpectedly. Indeed, even a print out of an electronic record on a paper
might be viewed as comparable to the first one, except if significant segments of the first are
not noticeable in printed structure.

(v) Prattle Hearsay proof is viewed as a frail piece of proof, since it doesn't give the extension
to the court to inspect or interview the individual initially giving the proof to confirm the
honesty of the proof. For instance, the proof that there was an email correspondence sent by
an individual might be demonstrated by the development of the email message. In any case,
the equivalent can't be utilized to demonstrate the reliability of the assertions made in the
email. As per the standard of enthusiasm for gossip proof, prattle proof isn't considered while
conceding proof by the court, in light of the fact that, the guidelines of proof demand the
presence of the individual in the court, whose assertion is depended upon, in light of a
legitimate concern for equity. This is to guarantee that "numerous potential wellsprings of
mistake and conniving can be uncovered and uncovered, assuming they exist, by the trial of
interrogation. The expression ―hearsay proof isn't utilized in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
in light of the fact that it is wrong and ambiguous. It is a principal rule of proof under the
Indian regulation that noise proof is inadmissible." Electronic proof and PC criminology have
ended up being quite possibly the most often involved method for proof in legal procedure.
Not at all like different parts of criminological science utilized for criminal examinations,
electronic proof has summoned assorted questionable issues among the legitimate experts.
The new difficulties given by electronic proof have been managed by various overall sets of
laws in various ways. In a portion of the frameworks, such difficulties including electronic

69
proof have been tended to by presenting explicit regulations; at times, the current regulations
have been deciphered to apply the standards in the event of electronic proof. For example, the
suitability of electronic proof is subject to whether it very well may be related to evidence by
archive or by visual examination. A large number of the frameworks take on a blend of the
both. The general sets of laws consolidating new regulation for suitability of electronic proof
underline on contrasts among electronic and customary types of proof, though, the others will
quite often feature the similitudes among conventional and advanced evidence. The term
'dependability' alludes to two basic angles - unwavering quality and genuineness.
Dependability guarantees that the record is equipped for representing current realities still up
in the air. Credibility alludes to the validity of the proof. As such, it implies whether the
record 'matches the cases made about it'104

4.8 Legal interventions on admissibility of electronic evidence : a critical

analysis
With critical revisions in the current regulation on proof to give acknowledgment to
electronic proof, it is likewise essential to evaluate the job of the Judiciary in showing its
discernment towards characteristic 'electronic' nature of proof, which remembers procedures
for the suitability of such proof, and perceives the way of creating and recording electronic
proof under the watchful eye of the court via deciphering the laws. As far as PC related
wrongdoing is concerned, electronic or computerized proof assumes a significant part in the
conveyance of equity. Right from recognizing electronic proof till they are created under the
steady gaze of the court, the policing, for example, researching offices, measurable specialists
in scientific labs, people giving declaration under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, and the appointed authority conceding or not conceding the proof in view of the report
submitted under the said arrangement - all play a huge part to play in the removal of such
cases. The entire interaction includes difficulties at different stages to the power of
electronic/computerized proof. A portion of these difficulties incorporate chance of change,
control or harm of proof, unwavering quality of the PC progamme that created the record,
question in regards to personality of the creator of an electronic report, dependability of proof
from an informal communication site, verification of data via virtual Entertainment
destinations and so on. These difficulties might be tended to through examination of different
legal declarations. Prior to going into different parts of legal mediations on electronic proof, it
is critical to take note that the legal executive has been extremely dynamic with respect to

104
VEPA P.SARATHI, LAW OF EVIDENCE (2017)

70
acknowledgment of electronic records and gadgets as proof, and understanding of the
principles of suitability of electronic proof.105

Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi106 (Analysis of Section 65-An and 65-B) The court held that
the actual presence of individual in Court may not be needed for reason for illustrating proof
and the equivalent should be possible through medium like video conferencing. Segments 65-
An and 65-B set down arrangements for confirmations connecting with electronic records and
tolerability of electronic records, and that meaning of electronic records incorporates video
conferencing

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu.107 While looking at the arrangements of recently
added Sections 65B, the Apex Court held that in a given case, it is possible that the
endorsement containing the subtleties in sub-section (4) of Section 65B of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 isn't documented, yet that doesn't imply that optional proof can't be given. The
Court held that the law allows such proof to be given in the conditions referenced in the
pertinent arrangements, to be specific, Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Section 150
of the judgment gives as follows: ". As per Section 63, optional proof methods incorporates,
in addition to other things, duplicates produced using the first by mechanical cycles which in
themselves safeguard the exactness of the duplicate, and duplicates contrasted and such
duplicates. Section 65 empowers optional proof of the items in a report to be illustrated in the
event that the first is of such a nature as not to be effectively mobile. It isn't in question that
the data contained in the call record is put away in gigantic servers which won't be quickly
moved and delivered in the court. Irrespective of the consistence with the necessities of
Section 65-B, which is an arrangement managing suitability of electronic records, there is no
bar to illustrating optional proof under different arrangements of the Evidence Act, in
particular, Sections 63 and 65. It is possible that the declaration containing the subtleties in
sub-section (4) of Section 65-B isn't documented in the moment case, yet that doesn't imply
that optional proof can't be given in the conditions referenced in the applicable arrangements,
specifically, Sections 63 and 65". In this way, the Court made a liberal understanding of rule
of suitability for electronic proof as optional proof through Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian
Evidence Act.108

105
W. BLAKE ODGERS, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (1911).
106
AIR 2005 Cal 11.
107
(2005) 11 SCC 600.
108
W. BLAKE ODGERS, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (1911).

71
State of Punjab v Amritsar Beverages Ltd (deciphering hard circle inside the meaning of
'report')109 For this situation, a writ request was recorded under the watchful eye of the High
Court for not returning the held onto books, records, reports and PC plate to the organization
even after specified time. While the case was in request under the steady gaze of the Supreme
Court, the Court alluded to the troubles of authorization officials which might be looked by
them who might not have any logical aptitude to handle the new computerized proof. The
Court held: "Web and other data advancements carried with them the issues which were not
anticipated by regulation concerning model, issues in deciding legal liabilities. It likewise
didn't predict the hardships which might be looked by the officials who might not have any
logical mastery or didn't have the adequate knowledge to handle with the new circumstance.
Different new advancements prompting different various types of wrongdoings unexpected
by our governing body come to quick concentration. Data Technology Act, 2000 even though
was altered to incorporate different sorts of cybercrimes and the disciplines therefor, doesn't
manage all issues which are looked by the officials implementing the said Act."

Bodala Murali Krishna v. Smt. Bodala Prathima110 (Recognition of Electronic Evidence)

Recognizing the electronic records, that's what the court held, "… the changes conveyed to
the Evidence Act by presentation of Sections 65-An and 65-B are comparable to the
electronic record. Segments 67-An and 73-A were presented as respect evidence and
confirmation of computerized marks. As respect to assumptions to be drawn about such
records, Sections 85-A, 85-B, 85-C, 88-An and 90-A were added. These arrangements are
alluded exclusively to show that the accentuation, as of now, is to perceive the electronic
records and computerized marks, as acceptable bits of proof."111

Jagjit Singh v State of Haryana (Admissibility of CD containing interviews directed by a TV

channel)112 For this situation, the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana
excluded a part for deserting. While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court considered the
enthusiasm for computerized proof as interview records from the Zee News TV station and
different media sources. The court verified that the electronic proof put on record was
allowable and maintained the dependence put by the speaker on the recorded meeting while
arriving at the resolution that the voices recorded on the CD were those of the people making

109
Appeal (civil) 3419 of 2006.
110
AIR 2007 AP 43.
111
WILLIAM MACK & HARVARD P. NASH, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW AND PROCEDURE (1905).
112
Writ Petition (civil) 287 of 2004.

72
a move. The Supreme Court tracked down no illness in the speaker's dependence on the
computerized proof.

Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana113 Recognition of Compact Disk (CD) as 'report'
In the previously mentioned case, the Supreme Court permitted smaller circles (CDs) to be
treated as a record under the law and said that disputants ought to be permitted to demonstrate
or negate such electronic proof in legal procedures. The summit court, without settling on the
legitimacy of a CD for a situation, allowed the blamed to welcome on record the taped
telephonic discussions to effectively defend himself in a kid sexual maltreatment case. That's
what the Supreme Court held "a minimal plate (CD) is to be treated as a report under the law
and disputants ought to be permitted to demonstrate the realness of such electronic proof in
judicial procedures." The court was passing a judgment for a situation of kid sexual
maltreatment in which the charged needed to put on record a CD of taped phone discussions
to demonstrate his "guiltlessness". The Court put away a Punjab and Haryana High Court
request concurring with the preliminary court's choice to deny the blamed's supplication to
create recorded telephonic discussion between his better half and child and the young lady's
dad to make his statement that there was a property debate between the two families. The
peak court didn't go into the legitimacy of the taped discussions or the CD, yet asked the
preliminary court to permit the charged to put it on record.66 This is, without a doubt, a
positive methodology towards dependence on electronic proof by the Judiciary.

Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate114 (Distinction between electronic proof and
different types of conventional proof) On many events, the legal executive has recognized
electronic proof and different types of customary proof. In the previously mentioned case, the
Supreme Court held: "New procedures and gadgets are things to take care of. However such
gadgets are helpless to altering, no thorough rule could be set somewhere near which the
confirmation of such proof might be judged. Standard of verification of its realness and
exactness must be more rigid than other narrative proof." (para 20) Thus, from one
perspective, the court has valued the way that new methods and electronic gadgets are basic
pieces of any criminal examination; then again, it additionally underlined the way that the
principles of demonstrating the legitimacy of such proof should be more severe than other
narrative proof.115

113
 [2015] INSC 827.
114
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2928 OF 2008.
115
Amitai Etzioni, “Implications of Select New Technologies for Individual Rights and Public Safety”, 15(2)
HARV. J. OF L. & TECHN (2002)

73
Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP (Emphasis on significance of electronic proof)116 In the
previously mentioned case, the Supreme Court zeroed in on the significance of science and
innovation in the examination of cases connecting with electronic proof. The Court held:
"With the progression of data innovation, logical attitude in the individual and at the
institutional level is to swarm the strategies for examination. With the rising effect of
innovation in day to day existence and thus, the development of electronic proof in cases has
become applicable to lay out the responsibility of the blamed or the obligation for the
respondent. Electronic records strictu sensu are conceded as material proof. With the
alteration to the Indian Evidence Act, 2000, Sections 65A and 65B were acquainted into
Chapter V relating with narrative proof. Section 65A gives that items in electronic records
might be conceded as proof assuming the models furnished in Section 65B is consented to."
(para 25)

Gajraj v. State (NCT) of Delhi (Reliance on electronic proof) 117 In the previously mentioned
case, the Supreme Court of India firmly depended on electronic proof to the extent that the
extraordinary ID number of versatile handset is concerned. The Court featured: "The proof
delivered by the indictment depends on one evident reality, to be specific, each versatile
handset has a select IEMI number. No two versatile handsets have a similar IEMI number
and each time a portable handset is utilized for settling on a decision, other than recording the
quantity of the guest as well as the individual called, the IEMI quantities of the handsets
utilized are likewise recorded by the specialist co-op. The previously mentioned authentic
position must be remembered while analyzing the indictment proof." (para 10)118

P.V.Anvar v. P.K. Basheer (Mandatory necessity of testament under Section 65B) In this
milestone judgment passed by the Supreme Court, the issue of translation of Section 65A and
65B of the Indian Evidence Act came up for thought and the Supreme Court held that
electronic proof kept in the CD, without a certificate under Section 65B is prohibited in
proof. In para 24 of the said administering it is held as follows, "24. The circumstance would
have been different had the litigant shown essential proof, by making accessible in proof, the
CDs utilized for declaration and melodies. Had those CDs utilized for frightful tunes or
declarations been appropriately got held onto through the police or Election Commission and
had the equivalent been utilized as essential proof, the High Court might have played a

116
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2015.
117
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1797 of 2010 ·
118
Anne Wallace, “Using Video Link to Take Forensic Evidence: Lessons from an Australian Case Study”,
17(3) INT. J. OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 221 – 49 (2013).

74
similar in court to see whether the charges were valid. That isn't what is happening for this
situation. The talks, tunes and declarations were recorded utilizing different instruments and
by taking care of them into a PC, CDs were made hence which were created in court, without
due confirmation. Those CDs can't be conceded in proof since the compulsory prerequisites
of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not fulfilled. It is explained that despite what we
have expressed thus in the first passages on the optional proof of electronic record concerning
Sections 59, 65-An and 65-B of the Evidence Act, assuming an electronic record as such is
utilized as essential proof under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the equivalent is permissible
in proof, without consistence with the circumstances in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act."
This overruled the choice of the Court in State (NCT of Delhi) versus Navjot Sandhu
(examined prior). Explaining on the utilization of Section 65-B(4), the Supreme Court
likewise held that, on the off chance that an electronic record as such is utilized as essential
proof under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the equivalent is permissible in
proof, without consistence with the circumstances in Section 65B of the Evidence Act. There
might be events when in enormous foundations like Railways, Airports where an enormous
number of cameras are introduced and the data is put away carefully in colossal servers, it
may not be feasible for the Police to hold onto the server and send them either to the Forensic
Science Department or produce them under the watchful eye of the Court. Just to block this
trouble and to sufficiently meet the complaints connecting with the suitability of optional
proof in electronic structure, the Parliament thought it fit to confirm Section 65B. Regardless
of whether the certificate isn't gotten at the hour of an assortment of proof, yet, at the hour of
preliminary, proof aliunde can be given through the individual who was responsible for the
Server, as far as Section 65B of the Act, as held by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
in Kundan Singh v. State119. The Police can likewise demand the administrations of Computer
Experts and Experts from the Forensic Sciences Department to recover information from a
gigantic server through a USB drive or CD drive or some other device with the end goal of
examination and creation of a similar under the steady gaze of the Court without upsetting the
respectability of the first source. On the off chance that we neglect to give this office to the
Police, the Criminal Justice Delivery System will turn into a faltering duck.

State v. Manoj Kumar (2017), 173/6 and 429118/16 This instance of Delhi District Court was
connected with the demise happened in the court premises of the Karkardooma locale court,
which was caught in the CCTV introduced inside the court premises, and this was the most

119
CRL.A. 711/2014.

75
impressive proof against the blamed. To persuade the court, the DVD having the CCTV film
was played in the court. The primary dispute for this situation was that there is a distinction in
the hash worth of the first hard plate and the DVD, which was played in the court, thusly, no
conviction can be put together depending concerning something very similar. The Court held
as follows: To demonstrate the validity or legitimacy of CCTV Footage, Prosecution has
inspected a few observers. The Forensic Investigator of Pyramid Cyber Security and Forensic
Pvt. Ltd ousted that he took out the Hard Disk from the CPU of the control room and
arranged two mirror duplicates of the hard plate with the assistance of a gadget called
logicube Dossier. The two hard plates for setting up the perfect representation were given by
the police. He created the hash worth of unique hard plate, which was taken out from the
CPU with the assistance of Logicube Dossier. He dismissed that there was no treating during
the time spent taking out the Hard Disks from the CPU and doing the readiness of its
identical representation. He further expressed that it is likely that on the off chance that the
plate isn't given the right security while appending it to some framework or Network, the
hash worth might change on account of the infections or some other executable program. It is
vital to take note of that the District Court of Delhi was available to such details introduced
by the legal specialists and worked with the suitability of the CCTV film, which is a positive
sign towards the changing disposition of the Judiciary.

CBI v. Nirmal Singh (2017)120 - The issue rotated around the report of a measurable master,
whose certification as a specialist was addressed by the safeguard. As per guard, he is
certainly not a specialist in voice acknowledgment and was not approved to offer any such
viewpoint as he was not advised under Section 79-An of Information Technology Act, 2000.
It has additionally been contended that to guarantee the validness of the recording, no hash
esteem was produced either by CBI or by CFSL and, thusly, it isn't certain regardless of
whether keep being referred to are unedited or unaltered. One more significant angle covered
by this case was regardless of whether any denounced can be constrained to give voice test.
In Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP121, the inquiry whether Article 20(3) of Constitution of India,
which safeguards an individual blamed for an offense from being constrained to be an
observer against himself, stretches out to shielding such a denounced from being constrained
to give his voice test throughout examination concerning an offense or not. Considering the
unique perspectives communicated by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the matter was
coordinated to be set before a bigger seat of Supreme Court. The Court held that in the event
120
CNR No. DLCT01-004642-2015.
121
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2003 OF 2012.

76
of assent given by the individual (giving the voice test), the topic of contention with Article
20(3) doesn't emerge in conceding such proof.122

K. Ramajayam @ Appu v. The Inspector of Police: 123 The Court, for this situation, gave
specific rules concerning logical and legitimate parts of CCTV accounts. Coming up next
where a portion of the vital perceptions made by the court as to logical proof: a) "The law, it
is said, strolls a good distance behind science, yet courts attempt to keep side by side. The
lawbreaker rushes to utilize science to carry out brilliant violations, thus the police and the
courts ought to be no less imaginative; and courts ought to continuously urge the police to do
so and concede the proof gathered by any creative technique. The law courts can assume a
significant part by (1) taking master proof to see whether the best logical techniques have
been utilized, (2) by the Judge examining the proof cautiously, and (3) empowering the
researchers, when the proof is solid, by giving legal acknowledgment to his methods."76 b)
The capacity of the human psyche to give its own translation to what the eyes saw and what
the ears heard while describing, can't be limited. Generally, Courts have perceived the way
that there will undoubtedly be misrepresentations and embellishments in oral records.
Assuming five individuals are approached to witness an occasion and give a record of it
exclusively, there won't be unanimity in their forms… … It is proverbial that CCTV film
doesn't experience such ills and human frailities, and they are better than human declaration
of realities. c) One needs to comprehend the study of CCTV Recordings in the illumination of
the Information and Technology Act, 2000, with the end goal of its ideal use as proof in the
Court of Law. Gone are the days when Hindustan Photo Films created film rolls for stacking
in the camera and with the snap of the button the picture gets engraved on the film. The
engraving is known as the negative, which is the essential proof, and the positive grew
subsequently is considered as the auxiliary proof. That procedure has now become outdated.
Today, the actual pictures caught by the camera are changed over by a PC programming into
data, fit for being put away as information in electronic structure and the put away
information is electronic record. (Para 31) e) The topic of duplicate as it is regularly
perceived in actual information may not be material for electronic information. While
recovering the information from an enormous Server it would do the trick if certificate under
Section 65B is gotten from the individual, who is responsible for the Server. Later so getting
the data in a USB drive or CD or some other device, the master can take care of the

122
Ashwini Vaidialingam, “Authenticating Electronic Evidence: S. 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, NUJS L.
REV. 43 (2015).
123
Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2015.

77
information into his PC and take printouts in unmistakable structure with his confirmation
expressing concerning how he had gathered the information from the Server and took care of
them into his PC and delivered the results. These two confirmations, as we would like to
think, will fulfill the prerequisites of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 35)

Sidharth Jaitly v. State(2015)124 The solicitor, through the system of RTI, has gathered data
from CFSL, Lodhi Road, New Delhi; APFSL, Hyderabad and CFSL, Chandigarh, with
respect to the technique for voice test assortment. In every such report, it has been imparted
that hash esteem isn't required for assessment of legitimacy or correlation of voice recording
contained in two CDs, yet is just an extra boundary to confirm whether the two
sound/information documents are same and that few elements must be considered regarding
the tape validation assessment. (Para 9)125

Smash Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and Ors 126 For this situation, the CD was analyzed
and the measurable picture was verified by MD5 Hash (#) esteem in CFSL Hyderabad. Hash
esteem is expressed to be a consequence of a computation (hash calculation) that could be
performed on a line of text, electronic record or whole hard drive's items. Each hashing
calculation utilizes a particular number of bytes to store a thumbprint of the items. The most
widely recognized hash esteem, apparently to be MD5. # MD5 has a specific worth which
whenever got from a CD, its genuineness is best represented by the way that the memory chip
likewise contains the thumbprint, in particular, the hash esteem MD5. … Another significant
viewpoint, which it has been noted, is that there was no connection conceivable between the
advanced proof stockpiling media, in particular, the CD and the memory chip that was said to
have been the hotspot for the replication of information in the CD. The Court held that in the
wake of getting the report from the CFSL, Hyderabad, there is practically nothing left to
evaluate the legitimacy of the CD. In the event that the CD can't stand the trial of realness by
its examination with its hash esteem with the source, then, at that point, the record of what
has been gotten through its sound film for sure it implies to catch can't be taken as valuable.

State versus Mohd. Afzal and others The issue under the steady gaze of the Delhi High Court
for this situation was whether the PC print outs, for the different phones, stood demonstrated
according to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or not. Perceiving the principles
of proof set down in Section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, the Court held as follows:
124
CRL.REV.P. 267/2015.
125
Ashwini Vaidialingam, “Authenticating Electronic Evidence: S. 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, 43 NUJS
L. REV (2015)
126
2017 SCC OnLine SC 259.

78
"The ordinary rule of driving narrative proof is the creation and confirmation of the first
report itself. Optional proof of the items in a record can likewise be driven under Section 65
of the Evidence Act. Optional proof of the items in a report can be driven when the first is of
such a nature as not to be effectively versatile. Electronic working frameworks and
emotionally supportive networks in industry can't be moved to the court. The data is put away
in these PCs on attractive tapes (hard plate). Electronic record delivered there from must be
taken as a print out. Sub-section (1) of Section 65B makes permissible minus any additional
confirmation, in proof, print out of an electronic record contained on an attractive media
subject as per the general inclination of the circumstances referenced in the part. The
circumstances are referenced in Sub-section (2). Hence consistence with Sub-section (1) and
(2) of Section 65B is sufficient to make acceptable and demonstrate electronic records. This
end streams out, even from the language of Sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) permits the
confirmation of the circumstances set out in Sub-section (2) through a declaration given by
the individual depicted in Sub-section (4) and guarantees contents in the way set out in the
sub-segment. The subsection makes permissible an electronic record when ensured that the
items in a PC printout are created by a PC fulfilling the states of Sub-section (1), the
testament being endorsed by the individual portrayed in that. Consequently, Sub-section (4)
accommodates an elective strategy to demonstrate electronic record and not by any means the
only technique to demonstrate electronic record." (Para 266)

Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. v. Essar Industries and Ors 127: Recognizing the significance
of electronic proof, the Delhi High Court underlined on the requirement for a regulation
connecting with suitability and confirmation of electronic records considering the huge
development in the space of data and innovation over the most recent twenty years, which has
required expanding dependence upon electronic record by the world at large. "The council
answered the crying need of the day by embedding into the Evidence Act Sections 65A and
65B, connecting with suitability of PC produced proof in the main commonsense manner it
could to dispose of the test to electronic proof." (Para 11)128

Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan 129: For this situation, the Rajasthan High Court had the
potential chance to consider what is happening where the arraignment had not created the
endorsement at the hour of documenting the charge-sheet; as a matter of fact, they had

127
2006 (33) PTC 469 Del.
128
B. Carrier, DEFINING DIGITAL FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS USING
ABSTRACTION LAYERS, 1(4), INT. J. OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE, (2003).
129
2015 SCC Online Raj 8331..

79
delivered it over the span of the preliminary. The Court excused a test against this postponed
documenting by the blamed in light of the fact that in Anvar, the subject of stage at which
such declaration is to be created was not managed by the Court. Such productive translation
of Anvar empowered the indictment to welcome on record vital electronic proof. From one
viewpoint, understanding of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in Anvar outrightly
dismisses standards of legal translation, disregarding and wilfully perusing in legal
prerequisites as it sees fit. From a reasonable perspective, by setting down obligatory
structure and content necessities, it makes pointless unbending nature in Section 65B.
However, when seen according to a strategy viewpoint, it has prevailed with regards to giving
consistency and sureness in evidentiary practices, all things considered. This can be
acknowledged from the training the lower courts in India have been enjoying as to suitability
of electronic proof since September 2014 (since the conveyance of judgment in Anvar), with
exemptions like Tomaso Bruno83 in January 2015, where the court demanded creation of
electronic proof as a pivotal proof for the situation.

In any case, the guidelines set somewhere around Anvar should be returned to remembering
the expansion in the utilization of innovation in carrying out wrongdoings. In the current
situation, when the talk is on modernization of rules of proof, the legal understanding in
Anvar might go about as a genuine hindrance in conceding electronic proof under the
watchful eye of the courts.

Sonu @ Anvar v. State of Haryana The case included CDRs were not affirmed as per sub-
section (4) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The inquiry, which succumbed
to thought, was about passability of a protest in regards to forbidden nature of CDRs in proof
under the watchful eye of the Court. In para 29, the Court holds that honestly, no complaint
was taken when the CDRs were illustrated in proof under the steady gaze of the Trial Court.
It holds that it doesn't show up from the record that any such protest was taken even at the
redrafting stage under the watchful eye of the High Court. 101. In para 32 of Sonu @ Anvar's
case, the Apex Court holds that it is no one's case that CDRs which are a type of electronic
record is not intrinsically forbidden in proof. The complaint is that they were set apart under
the steady gaze of the Trial Court without a testament as expected by Section 65B(4). The
Court holds that the significant test in such a case is whether the imperfection might have
been relieved at the phase of denoting the report. Upon a complaint connecting with the mode
or strategy for confirmation, the Court holds that in the current case if a protest was taken to
the CDRs being set apart without an endorsement, the Court might have offered the

80
indictment a chance to correct the lack. It holds that the mode or strategy for confirmation is
procedural and protests, on the off chance that not taken at the preliminary, can't be allowed
at the redrafting stage. That's what it holds if the issues with the method of evidence are
allowed to be taken at the re-appraising stage by a party, the opposite side doesn't have a
chance of correcting the lacks. A model was taken with regards to the assertions under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which fall under the class of intrinsically
prohibited proof and CDRs don't fall in the expressed classification of archives.130

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh The Supreme Court, for this situation,
pondered upon the meaning of videography as a critical method for proof related to the extent
of materialness of procedural necessities under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, where it saw that a party, who isn't in control of a gadget which has delivered an
electronic report, can't be expected to create a testament under Section 65B(4) of the Act. The
main point of contention that was considered was whether a video recording of the location
of crime during examination ought to be important to motivate trust in the proof gathered and
in the given setting, what might be the extent of relevance of the procedural prerequisites
under Section 65(B)(4) of the Act for outfitting a declaration in the event of electronic proof
created by an individual not in the guardianship of the gadget producing such proof? A two
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court raised the issue of creation of declaration under Section
65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act as a required rule for suitability of electronic proof. The
issue under the steady gaze of the Court was whether videography of the location of crime or
scene of recuperation during examination ought to be important to motivate trust in the proof
gathered. Reference was utilized Body-worn cameras by policing, which not just goes about
as obstruction against hostile to social way of behaving and is likewise a device to gather the
proof. The matter was brought up by Union back Home Secretary to comprise Committee of
specialists to work with the utilization of videography in crime locations. In this specific
situation, the subject of acceptability of electronic proof was raised. The Court gave an
extremely helpful translation of Section 65-B(4) in the accompanying way: "The materialness
of procedural prerequisite under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of outfitting testament is
to be applied just when such electronic proof is an in a delivered by an individual situation to
create such endorsement being in charge of the said gadget and not of the contrary party. For
a situation where electronic proof is not delivered by a party ownership of a gadget,
pertinence of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act can't be held to be prohibited. The
130
Carrie Morgan Whitcomb, “A Historical Perspective of Digital Evidence: A Forensic Scientist’s View”, 1 (1)
INT’L J. OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE (2002).

81
materialness of prerequisite of endorsement being procedural can be loose by Court any place
revenue of equity so legitimizes." In continuation to this, on April 3, 2018, the Supreme
Court in Shafhi Mohammad alluded to the game plan ready by Ministry of Home Affairs
(MHA) on the utilization of videography in the police examination specifying limit working
with regards to preparing, gear, measurable offices, a plan for essential assets, readiness of
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The Court has given vital headings and held that "now
is the ideal opportunity that means are taken to present videography in examination,
especially for crime location as alluring and satisfactory best practice as recommended by the
Committee of the MHA to reinforce the Rule of Law." Under such conditions, it is
exceptionally beneficial that the strategies to validate electronic proof are additionally
reinforced, aside from creation of a declaration as emphasized in Anvar. Such methodology
makes the criminological parts of electronic or advanced proof even more critical.131

Vijesh v. the State of Kerala This new judgment was conveyed after the warning of the
Examiners of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act,
2000. The case gives clearness on the changing methodology of the legal executive after the
warning. The Court held that an analyst of electronic proof need not demonstrate in that
frame of mind of regulation that they are masters in the said field. When advised, the skill of
the foundation is perceived and laid out. In different cases, the master who had analyzed the
electronic proof should demonstrate his skill in the official courtroom. Such understanding
again leaves a question mark on the believability of the proof, regardless of whether it is
made by inspector of electronic proof. The court is yet to set any rule as to this. What's more,
the Court noticed the accompanying: "Given the idea of proof to be duplicated, keeping up
with the evidential progression and respectability of the proof that is replicated is of principal
significance. Such proof will be exposed to questioning comparable to its honesty. At the end
of the day, the most common way of duplicating and dealing with such proof ought to be
completed to the most elevated potential norms."

CBI v. Ashok Pal Panwar132: In the previously mentioned case under the steady gaze of the
Delhi District Court, it was contended that logical proof can't be ignored nonchalantly and
should be treated as right and real except if the equivalent is gone against by protection with
the assistance of persuading proof. The Court was of the assessment that electronic proof is
normally an alternate sort of animal types through and through, which is neither essential

131
Christopher Wall & Jason Paroff, “Cracking the Computer Forensics Mystery”, 17 (7) UBJ (2015).
132
CC No. 02/2013.

82
proof nor ideal optional proof in the traditional manner. It might rather be viewed as
considered proof. The court demanded that a testament alongside the report should be given
by the master to show that every one of the legal prerequisites as given under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were met. Notwithstanding, the Court likewise would not
acknowledge such proof alongside an endorsement, as the way of treatment of electronic
proof was absolutely improper and biased to the safeguard and, hence, the CD as well as the
well-qualified assessment was dismissed by the Court.133

4.9 Challenges in admissibility and the judiciary

With the correction of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the Information Technology Act,
2000, new norms of suitability of electronic proof were set down in Section 65-An and
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. From the examination of different cases alluded to above,
it has been seen that despite the norms, there has been huge uniqueness in the methodology of
the courts in India concerning treatment of electronic proof. The mediation of the Supreme
Court of India in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), P.V.Anvar v. P.K. Basheer
(2014) and Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) has demonstrated the
different methodology of the Court. Preceding Navjot Sandhu (i.e.2005), the standards of
suitability set down in Section 65-An and Section 65-B were at this point to be deciphered
widely, even though the courts began perceiving the significance of logical proof and the
critical job of a logical master. With Navjot Sandhu coming into force, a liberal methodology
should have been visible among the legal executive working with creation of electronic proof
as optional proof. The Court held that the law allows such proof to be given in the conditions
referenced in the significant arrangements, in particular, Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence
Act. A few issues were raised before the Judiciary since the principles of tolerability have
been set down in the law of proof. Some of them might be featured as follows:

• Who is the ensuring organization for giving authentication?

• How autonomous are the people confirming under Section 65B? How much would they say
they are liberated from impacts? How would we guarantee realness?

• No recommended design for the authentication - absence of clearness regarding contents

• There is no rule adhered to by the legal executive to dismiss or acknowledge the

declaration.

133
Supra note 56.

83
• The individual giving the endorsement gives a urgent connection between the researching
official and the adjudicator.

• It ought to be made obligatory to document a statement by the individual giving the

endorsement that the equivalent is given freely with next to no impact.

On the off chance that an electronic record as such is utilized as essential proof under Section
62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the equivalent is acceptable in proof, without
consistence with the circumstances set down in Section 65B of the Evidence Act. We know
that in numerous public and confidential workplaces, however PCs are worked by their staff,
yet the monitoring and upkeep of servers, where the information is really put away, is moved
to private players like TCS, WIPRO, and so forth. Under those conditions, it would get the
job done assuming Section 65B declaration is gotten from the individual who is responsible
for the server through the way that he isn't a staff of the parent association. Section 65B
doesn't need confirmation by a public power not at all like instances of issuance of ensured
duplicate of public record under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It isn't required
in that frame of mind to look at the individual who had given the 65B testament as observer
under the steady gaze of the preliminary Court, except if the Court associates the
respectability with the electronic record that is delivered as proof. One ought to remember
that a computerized picture can't be controlled without any problem. Each computerized
picture has a meta information put away in it. The meta information is organized as coded
information, which gives each picture its own personality. It ought to be recalled that the
confirmation under Section 65B isn't for the honesty of the substance of the PC created
record, yet is basically connected with the functioning state of the PC from where the put
away record is delivered in a substantial structure for the Court to review. Protection will
constantly grumble of control, however Courts can dismiss whimsical protests remembering
the standard underlined in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. De omnibus
dubitandum (question everything) reasoning might be a street to logical disclosures, however
not really for legal enquiries, where wonderful evidence is idealistic. Considering that the
majority of the proof produced today is in electronic structure, litigators need to figure out
how to manage it proficiently, cost-successfully and with a brain to getting it conceded at
preliminary. For a considerable length of time, litigators attempted to wish away the issues of
electronic proof by just printing out messages and word handling reports. Since the vast
majority of the lawbreaker cases include electronic records, it has not any more stayed
attainable to switch each electronic report over completely to paper archive. The seriously

84
difficult aspect is that when an electronic report is switched over completely to paper,
significant data found inside its metadata is lost. All the while, we convert the proof from its
"best proof" unique structure into a form that could require optional proof to legitimize its
confirmation. Further, the metadata connected to electronic archives, other than being
possibly applicable to the case, is incredibly valuable for arranging and sorting out electronic
proof, which additionally sets aside time and cash. Tragically, there are still a few litigators
who have their clients print out their messages in general, just to have the legal counselors
then pay to have a similar messages filtered into suit programming to be coordinated for a
sworn statement of records and preliminary. Information that is as of now in electronic
structure can be surveyed, coordinated, delivered and conceded into proof at preliminary
without the requirement for any printing or duplicating. The expense suggestions are huge.
Innovation is vital to suit thus litigators need to connect with it such that serves the closures
of equity.

85
Chapter 5

STRENGTHENING INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS &
SUGGESTIONS
The most recent couple of many years has seen an extreme change in the idea of wrongdoings
carried out by the culprits having a place with various layers of the general public. There is
no question about the way that the courts are as yet overflowed with customary violations, for
example, murder, assault, robbery, criminal terrorizing, slander, and so on; in any case, the
changing pattern is that the development of innovation an affects the way of perpetrating such
wrongdoings. Thus, the exploring organizations are managing another class of proof for
example electronic or advanced proof, while tending to such conventional violations. Simple
use of knowledge in examining the details of such violations has not had the option to
determine the issues emerging out of such proof. Then again, violations are being dedicated
on the internet focusing on PCs and other computerized gadgets. As a matter of fact, an
exposed examination of the conventional guidelines of proof has not been exceptionally
powerful in examination of such violations in the present situation. When contrasted with
actual proof, electronic or computerized proof is different in nature since it has a few
remarkable qualities. Electronic proof, first of all, is a lot simpler to change. Second, amazing
advanced duplicates can be made without hurting any of the first. Simultaneously, the
respectability of such proof might be demonstrated. Understanding the remarkable idea of
electronic proof is significant for valuing the stages engaged with a PC criminology
examination and keeping up with the honesty of the equivalent. The truth of the matter is that
the examination of such wrongdoings is complicated. The proof is in many cases in an
immaterial structure. Its assortment, appreciation, examination and protection present
remarkable difficulties to the Investigator. The expanded utilization of organizations and the
development of the Internet have added to this intricacy. Utilizing the Internet, it is feasible
for an individual sitting in India to take a PC asset in the USA utilizing a PC arranged in
China. The difficulties in such cases are mechanical, yet addition jurisdictional. Such
difficulties have prompted extremely low pace of conviction in cases including electronic
proof. Not just that, the quantity of cases forthcoming under the steady gaze of different
courts is additionally exceptionally high. As per the measurements given by Indiastat on
State-wise removal of cases, the pendency of cases in India till 2016 was over 92%, which

86
can be supposed to be alarmingly high. Because of changing situation of wrongdoings, the
governing body presented the Information Technology Act 2000, which was additionally
corrected in 2008 in acknowledgment of digital violations. A similar Act likewise revised a
portion of the arrangements of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called the Evidence
Act) integrating rules connecting with electronic proof. Giving accentuation on the 293
utilization of criminological science in examination of wrongdoings, Section 45A was
embedded in the Evidence Act to consider the assessment of a PC measurable inspector or
Examiner of Electronic Evidence on any matter connecting with any data communicated or
put away in any PC asset or some other electronic or computerized structure. It is worth
focusing on that despite the way that Section 45A was embedded in the Evidence Act in
2009, and Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 made arrangements for
notice of Examiner of Electronic Evidence, the Central Government made no standards or
issue warning for giving acknowledgment to any office/research facility in India as Examiner
of Electronic Evidence until 2017, when the Government thought of a plan for something
very similar and six labs have been informed as inspectors under the IT Act till date. Such
deferral in working with the cycle has absolutely antagonistically impacted the course of
acceptability of electronic proof. The Indian means of policing and criminal examination are
as yet caught in the former ways of data assembling and demolishing an admission from the
suspects. The police force is totally undeveloped on current strategies for criminal
examination and isn't prepared to accumulate logical proof to introduce a watertight case in
court. To this end the hole goes on between detailing of wrongdoing, capturing a lawbreaker
lastly guaranteeing effective indictment of the blamed. While experiencing difficulties at the
degree of assortment, conservation and examination of electronic proof by the policing and
PC measurable specialists, an alternate arrangement of difficulties has been recognized when
the subject of suitability of such proof emerges before the legal executive who is generally
ignorant about the details of computer related wrongdoings. Alluding to the principles of
acceptability under Section 65A and 65B, the courts have articulates decisions on various
aspects, for example, investigating the chance of creation of electronic proof as optional
proof under Section 63, the significance of the testament to be delivered under the watchful
eye of the court alongside the proof as one of the circumstances under Section 65B, the
capabilities of the guaranteeing organizations for the equivalent and so on. The specialist in
the current exploration has made an examination of difficulties experienced by different
partners in the law enforcement process managing the policing during examination, job of the
Computer Forensic research facilities, show of discoveries of measurable assessment by the

87
specialists and the methodology of the legal executive on suitability. An experimental review
was led keeping these partners into account. From the investigation of the current legitimate
system on evidentiary issues connecting with PC related violations, the rules on PC
measurable method and discoveries of the observational review directed by the specialist, the
accompanying discoveries have been advanced:

Electronic proof, naturally, is a muddled, elusive type of proof, which is challenging to deal
with. Such proof is typically conditional in nature; additionally, ascribing PC movement to an
individual is troublesome. Such proof can be controlled and obliterated without any problem.
It gives just a fractional view in the extraction of information. Proof elements are a typical
peculiarity to the extent that electronic proof is concerned.

Worldwide Crime

The idea of a large portion of the wrongdoings connecting with PCs and other computerized
gadgets is worldwide in nature because of which the purview to examine such violations
turns into a significant issue. At the point when violations are perpetrated on the internet, the
server of the electronic gadget utilized for the wrongdoing may be situated past the regional
purview of India. For instance, Facebook's Whatsup has been utilized as a stage for exercises
prompting viciousness and other lawbreaker acts. Because of start to finish encryption of the
messages shared on this discussion, even the policing likewise doesn't approach such
messages, while leading examination of such violations including Whatsup. Since the server
is situated in the US, the policing in India doesn't approach any data situated in the Whatsup
server. Notwithstanding, such data can be shared exclusively at the caution of the specialist
organization/organization. This again is violative of the protection issues associated with start
to finish encryption of the messages. It is worth focusing on that WhatsApp has denied
demands by the Indian government to assemble a foundation to follow counterfeit messages,
asserting that doing so would break start to finish encryption.

Namelessness of Wrongdoer

One of the chief highlights of the web is its capacity to keep the client mysterious, which is
viewed as invaluable for the culprits as they might keep their personality clearly undisclosed.
Obscurity of the transgressor connecting with any action on the internet has, without a doubt,
fortified the essential right to the right to speak freely of discourse as any individual could
openly communicate his/her thoughts or individual perspectives in the digital world without
the apprehension about being distinguished and fought back. Sadly, obscurity presents new

88
difficulties to policing as well as casualties of digital wrongdoings as they would find it
challenging to follow and distinguish the people behind such demonstrations.

Unfortunate state of Investigation capacities regardless of the way that there is a critical
ascent in the pace of digital violations in India, the States are yet to reinforce their assets for
examination of digital wrongdoings. There are not many digital cells set up to manage such
cases. The very first Cyber Crime Police Station was set up in Gurugram just in 2018. Even
though a computerized lab has been set up in the police headquarters with refined machines,
three constables got preparing from the assembling organization for three days, which isn't
adequate to manage convoluted wrongdoing situations of the present time. There is no
sufficient foundation for managing violations including innovation in a large portion of the
police headquarters. This outcome in disappointment in gathering proper proof to reinforce
the arraignment case.

Altering of proof

Since the internet is exceptionally associated, it is not difficult to mess with electronic proof.
The policing is not exceptional to try not to such alter at the phase of assortment and
protection of evidence. Conventional insightful techniques unacceptable to manage complex
digital violations are by the by being followed, at last prompting police provocation of
residents. Aside from this, there is no model for preparing or researching officials for dealing
with digital wrongdoing referenced in the IT Act, 2000.

Upgraded Vulnerabilities on Electronic Media

Since web is without limits, it has a more prominent crowd and the badgering, manhandles
and so on, can be seen by individuals sitting in various geological sections. Also, web has the
probability to transform pictures, control voice and so on via trend setting innovation which
might make genuine social issues. Web gives more extensive chance to attack protection of
people and abuse essential rights to life, freedom and poise under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.

Absence of Standard Processes for the Collection and Preservation of Electronic

Evidence

Collection of proof includes not simply specialized skill; it likewise requires information on
the regulations relating to confirm. Infringement of those regulations can bring about the
proof being tossed out of court, no matter what its specialized quality and paying little heed

89
to how conclusively it demonstrates the culpability of the respondent. Each crime location
connecting with PC based proof presents extraordinary difficulties, and advanced specialists
should have the option to adjust measurable science standards imaginatively to new
circumstances. Simultaneously, the examining organizations have advanced standard working
strategies (SOPs) for managing examination of assortments of wrongdoing. Such strategies
should be in congruity with the essential standards of legal science to guarantee that proof is
gathered, safeguarded and dissected in a reliable way.

Support of Chain of Custody

One of the essential explanations behind not conceding electronic/advanced proof in the court
is the wrecked chain of care, which is generally because of obliviousness with respect to the
policing. A chain of guardianship is viewed as important to safeguard the trustworthiness of
the proof and to guarantee that the proof is reliable in that it has not been impeded from the
hour of seizure till the time the equivalent is introduced under the watchful eye of the court.
In the greater part of the cases, the policing are uninformed about the significance of keeping
a chain of care.

Absence of Resources

The assets accessible for dealing with digital wrongdoing are likewise extremely restricted
which goes about as an obstacle to fast and effective examination. For instance, distance turns
into a basic issue when a piece of the examination is expected to be led in a remote spot.
Contacting the spot for proof becomes troublesome as in a large portion of the cases, the
policing takes response in customary method of transport which defers the entire cycle.
Subsequently, satisfactory monetary assets should be given to such organizations to quicker
investigation.

Absence of Inter-State collaboration

Due to genuine trouble and coordination from one more state engaged with a wrongdoing, the
exploring organization neglects to finish examination. Such coordination has more
significance with regard to electronic proof.

Strength and Efficiency of Staff

• With the disturbing expansion in the pace of digital wrongdoing, the strength of the current
staff has not been dealt with for a powerful examination.

90
• The absence of schooling additionally hampers the police from deductively exploring any
wrongdoing. The preparation is confined to essential beat policing and doesn't open them to
present day procedures of criminal examination. Indeed, even the purported 'devoted' offices
that should be prepared up with logical examination methods, are typically burdened with out
of date innovation and strategies.

• Cyber Cells have not been set up in each locale. There is a not kidding lack of prepared
work force in the Cells which are presence. Furthermore, there is a shortage of digital
scientific research facilities in the states because of which quick mediation of measurable
specialists in such cases is a long way from the real world.

• No drawn out preparing is given to the official responsible for police headquarters to deal
with PC related wrongdoings.

Making of Forensic Images

The Hash Value Collision Once the obtaining of equipment is finished, the information
recuperated from capacity gadgets should be verified before they are examined. Confirmation
is the most common way of contrasting the first information and the duplicate or imaged
information to check that both are indistinguishable data. Authentication of information
happens through programming that utilizes a hashing calculation. Hashing is a cycle by
which a bunch of information as information is relegated a particular mathematical result,
which is known as hash esteem. The hash esteem is a significant device to distinguish and
confirm computerized proof. Such device might be utilized in the courtroom to conquer the
test from the adversary side that the information has been modified. The Message Digest 5
(MD5) hash is a usually involved device for honesty confirmation in the measurable imaging
process. In any case, the issue with these computerized scientific devices is that crash has
been accounted for by numerous specialists to demonstrate a shortcoming in this
cryptographic has work. Crash is a condition by which at least two records that has contrasts
in items and ways of behaving yet having a similar hash esteem. In such conditions,
dependence on such apparatuses will be unable to check the imaging system.

Treatment of different Gadgets for Forensic Procedure

There is no deficiency of electronic devices on the lookout, and consistently some random
thing has been added to the universe of contraptions. Because of their modern nature, such
gadgets are routinely involved by the casualties as well as the culprits of wrongdoing

91
consistently. During the PC criminological assessment, the inspectors/specialists are left with
so many contraptions, as the difficulties emerging from them might not have a straight
forward arrangement. Then again, use of legitimate standards to such investigation could be a
test of an alternate level

Vulnerability about Standard Tools for assessment

Use of more up to date innovation by the culprits of wrongdoing is a test as the need might
arise to be similarly modern and exceptional to manage them. Subsequently, standard
upgradation is expected to address with the new difficulties. In any case, obtainment of
devices is a long cycle as it requires endorsement at various levels. This requires coordinated
effort with the Procurement Department. Moreover, the specialists need to refresh themselves
consistently for guaranteeing better examination. Keeping up with such conventions in
obtaining devices nullifies the point of the scientific process.

Issues in disentangling Encrypted Data

Encryption is a basic piece of data innovation and relates to data and verification and access
control. Encryption innovation is the study of changing over discernible information into
muddled structure or transforming plain text into figure text that can't be perused or grasped
by unapproved individual, to safeguard classification, protection and to demonstrate honesty.
Then again, the accessibility and utilization of encryption innovations by crooks is quite
difficult for policing. Different legitimate ways to deal with address the issue are presently
being talked about, including possible commitments for programming designers to introduce
a secondary passage for policing.

Obliviousness of Rules of Evidence disregarding the way that the measurable specialists need
to look at the specialized parts of electronic information and gadgets, it is compulsory for
them to comprehend the lawful climate where they work. Any finding emerging out of the
measurable assessment should be in consistence with the guidelines of proof, without which
tolerability of proof in the court will be a not kidding concern.

Capacity of Evidence - a Challenge Keeping in view the long pendency of cases, the
measurable research facilities need more security for safe capacity of proof saved for
assessment. Electronic proof is delicate and exceptionally touchy to outrageous temperatures,
dampness, actual shock, electricity produced via friction and electro-attractive fields. The
person on call should play it safe while recording, shooting, bundling, moving and putting

92
away computerized proof to abstain from modifying, harming, or annihilating the
information. Furthermore, in a large portion of the courts, stockpiling of computerized proof
is as yet dealt with in an actual structure, principally as CDs and DVDs. While this strategy
might keep on being achievable sooner rather than later, courts need to consider how to deal
with an expansion in volume, as well as the innovation changes that will make CDs and
DVDs out of date.

Pendency of cases

Apart from different assets, the greater part of the scientific labs need labor to do their
capacities. There are various build-up cases to be discarded by these research facilities.
Additionally, deferring in removal of cases brings about nullifying the point of organization
of equity. As per the scientific specialists, half of the cases are forthcoming because of
absence of legitimate instruments and innovation. Aside from this, there are numerous
different variables contributing towards pendency of cases, for example, follows:

a) Recruitment of staff The enlistment of staff depends on a determination cycle led by the
public authority. The staff having a place with Grade An or more are chosen through UPSC,
while Group B staff are enlisted through Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
(DSSSB). The legal specialists are enlisted on an authoritative premise. This seems, by all
accounts, to be a significant hindrance as the long-lasting nature of an enlistment would bring
about better removal of cases.

b) Accessibility of exploring official for questions connecting with forthcoming cases Due to
pendency of cases in the lab, it is challenging to circle back to the old cases, as in the vast
majority of the cases the concerned examining official is not generally connected with the
case. On many events, police won't help out the scientific specialists. One of the essential
reasons is, since there is strange postpone in examination and legal examination of cases, the
current police faculty probably won't be associated with the cases close by. What's more, the
examining official engaged with the case probably won't be accessible for any
inquiry/explanation. Under such conditions, getting additional data working on this issue/s
becomes troublesome.

c) Authenticity of scientific assessment The genuineness of any result of measurable

assessment is a significant issue. In a large portion of the cases, the realness is subject to the
assortment cycle. Subsequently, sufficient insurance should be taken while gathering proof
from the location of crime.

93
d) Availability and Standardization of Forensic instruments Availability of scientific
instruments is a significant issue as it has an immediate bearing on the pace of removal of
forthcoming cases. Furthermore, the normalization of the instruments utilized for assessment
is a significant test. The PC measurable specialists guarantee that they search for worldwide
guidelines to be kept up with for the devices. In any case, getting the equivalent is a
troublesome errand and there is no consistency simultaneously yet. The course of obtainment
of devices is a long one which likewise defers the accessibility of instruments.

It is worth focusing on that Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has given to
accommodation of reports of government logical officials, which might be utilized as proof
during preliminary or request. A legal master might be inspected by the court under this
arrangement for electronic proof. Though, Section 79A of the Information Technology Act,
2000 made arrangements for warning of Examiner of Electronic Evidence, who might give
well-qualified assessment to the court, and the equivalent would have more grounded
evidentiary worth. Be that as it may, the Central Government made no standard or issue
warning for giving acknowledgment to any organization/research facility in India as
Examiner of Electronic Evidence until 2017, when the Government thought of a plan for
something similar and six labs have been informed as inspectors under the IT Act till date.
Such deferral in working with the cycle has surely unfavorably impacted the most common
way of verifying electronic proof.

Issues concerning Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, creation of an endorsement is made
required for tolerability of electronic proof. An individual who is in control of real proof
however by virtue of way of demonstrating, such report is kept out of thought by the court
without any declaration under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party delivering
couldn't realistically get, will prompt disavowal of equity. Also, the law isn't clear about the
accompanying issues:

• Who is the confirming organization for giving testament under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872?

• How free are the people confirming under Section 65B? How much would they say they are
liberated from impacts? How would we guarantee credibility?

• No endorsed design for the testament - absence of clearness regarding contents

94
• There is no rule adhered to by the legal executive to dismiss or acknowledge the
declaration.

• The individual giving the declaration gives a critical connection between the exploring
official and the appointed authority.

• It ought to be made obligatory to record a statement by the individual giving the declaration
that the equivalent is given freely with next to no impact.

Lawful Requirements for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

As far as the guidelines of acceptability of electronic proof are concerned, they depend on
three standards - significance, unwavering quality and realness. Any electronic proof is
conceded by the court subject to the adherence of these standards. Under Section 65A and
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which sets out the principles of suitability of
electronic proof accommodate creation of an endorsement to be given by the individual
having control of the gadget from where the record being referred to was made. Creation of
testament may not be imaginable in all cases, particularly when the computerized gadget isn't
in that frame of mind of the party concerned. Notwithstanding, in the new legal
proclamations, prior creation of testament has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court of
India.

Examination of wrongdoings on the internet: Need to resolve the issue of purview

During an examination, the exploring organization manages search and seizure, capture and
different issues which require jurisdictional lucidity. Hence, the part of ward is most
significant in each examination. With the increment of exercises on the internet, the idea of
regional sway and between state relationships has likewise been underlined in the new times.
All things considered, difficulties might be experienced in deciding the ward, particularly
when the person in question and the culprit of wrongdoing have a place with various
purviews, and it might likewise happen that one of the states probably won't perceive the go
about as a crime.29 Due to start to finish encryption of the messages shared on this gathering,
even the policing additionally don't approach such messages, while leading examination of
such violations including Whatsapp. Since the server is situated in the US, the policing in
India doesn't approach any data situated in the Whatsapp server. Under such conditions, the
next might be doable answers for the issue: I) A nearby server might be set up in India to
resolve the issues connecting with examination of violations committed through Whatsapp

95
and Facebook and so on. There is likewise a need to set up a neighbourhood substance,
delegate a nearby complaint official, so the questions from policing and the public authority
on counterfeit messages might be tended to really. ii) The issue of security in the event of
admittance to messages in start to finish encryption might be tended to by underscoring on
the way that following the beginning of messages flowed on Whatsapp doesn't imply
'unscrambling messages'. In such cases, Whatsapp ought to have the option to share section
and ID of the shipper of messages with the policing without compromising the protection of
the clients.

Need to set up institutional plan for dealing with cybercrime at State and District level

Each State/Union State might set up State Cybercrime Coordination Cell, which might be
going by a senior official of ADGP/IG rank to be assigned as State Cybercrime Coordinator.
This Cell might be liable for setting up of institutional system for dealing with cybercrime at
section /police headquarters level, guide and work with officials of such joins together,
manage limit building, give fundamental lab assets, likewise take up examination of explicit
cybercrime cases and direction with State Cybercrime Coordinators of different states in the
event of offenses under the IT Act, 2000 that fell under the locale of at least two states.
Section specialists in the field of digital criminology ought to be important for such
examination.

Drive at the Individual Level As an action for security from such double-dealing in the
internet, it is important to make prudent strides, for example, sufficient safety efforts to
guarantee not to reveal individual data on the web in unseemly fora. Passwords ought not be
made too simple to ever be broken by culprits. The security settings in online entertainment
work with impeding of records causing disturbance. A similar should be taken response to
stay away from superfluous provocation

Need for High Speed Internet movement

With the expansion in the pace of digital wrongdoing and utilization of new innovation
hurling its own one of a kind test, there is serious section s of strength for a to continually
overhaul the abilities and assets to manage them which incorporates working with rapid web
action. The police power ought to likewise be similarly made refined and furnished with
present day conveniences from all angles.

Strength and productivity of staff

96
• With the disturbing expansion in the pace of digital wrongdoing, the strength of the current
staff ought to likewise be raised for a powerful examination.

• Each digital cell should have a scientific master for sure fire intercession.

• It ought to be made compulsory for each official in the auditor and sub-assessor level
(regardless of where they are posted) to go through preparing in digital related violations
basically for a considerable length of time in digital cells.

• Even however preparing accommodated the policing are satisfactory, their preparation
abilities remained un-used as they don't get to connect themselves with the Cyber Cells.
Thusly, it ought to be made compulsory for each learner official to be posted in digital cells
for a particular period so such authority is worked with to upgrade his/her abilities to manage
digital wrongdoings and different violations including electronic gadgets.

• Every such wrongdoing ought to be treated as some other common wrongdoing so they are
seen better and managed accordingly.

Need to figure out the working of Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWDGE) -
a work towards normalization of PC measurable cycle

The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence unites associations effectively

participated in the field of computerized and mixed media proof to encourage correspondence
and collaboration as well as guaranteeing quality and consistency inside the legal local
section . The Federal Crime Laboratory Directors bunch framed SWGDE in 1998. It was
noticed that the conventional sound and video assessment and handling were becoming
advanced and, alongside advanced still photography was joining with PC legal sciences.
Thus, they shaped a gathering to investigate computerized proof as a legal discipline. That's
what early conversations uncovered, as a matter of fact, there were numerous likenesses and
covering in the disciplines of sound, video, picture examination and PC legal sciences and it
was alluring to foster norms and orchestrate tasks among these disciplines. Accordingly, the
Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence was framed, under the very umbrella that
covers the Scientific Working Groups on DNA (SWGDNA), Questioned Documents
(SWGDOC), Drugs (SWGDRUG), Fire and Explosives (SWGFEX), and Imaging (SWGIT)
and so on. Such discussion could be extremely powerful in carrying consistency of strategy
somewhat in India.

Challenges under the steady gaze of the Court - examiners and judges

97
The legitimateness and unwavering quality of proof are a portion of the fundamental
necessities that are viewed as by the legal executive while settling on the tolerability of proof.
The difficulties before the examiners and the adjudicators should be appropriately tended to
when the electronic proof is introduced under the watchful eye of the court. It is profoundly
unforeseen of them to grasp the details of such proof. Plus, to the extent that development of
testament under Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, it ought to be made
required to record a statement by the individual giving the declaration that the equivalent is
given freely with next to no impact.

Utilization of Videography in Crime Investigation For the situation of Shafhi Mohammad v.

State of Himachal Pradesh, One of the inquiries which emerged throughout thought of the
matter was whether videography of the location of crime or scene of recuperation during
examination ought to be important to rouse trust in the proof gathered. It was held by the
court that a Committee of Experts (COE) has been comprised to work with and set up a guide
for utilization of videography in the crime location and to propose a Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP). In any case, a trepidation was communicated about its execution because of
shortage of assets, issues of getting and stockpiling of information and acceptability of proof.
We noticed the idea that still-photography might be valuable by virtue of higher goals for
criminological examination. Computerized cameras can be put on a mount on a stand which
might empower turn and shifting. Gotten gateways might be laid out by which the
Investigation Officer can email photograph(s) taken at the crime location. Computerized
Images can be held on State's server as long-lasting record

Need to address the difficulties looked by the policing in taking care of electronic records
There is a critical need to fathom the method observed by the policing and the difficulties
experienced by them while dealing with electronic proof. On many events, the police don't
have the foggiest idea how to lead a legitimate pursuit in a modernized climate, especially in
an organized environment. Therefore, they miss out on crucial proof and signs. This prompts
absolution of hoodlums invalidating the actual point of law enforcement framework. A
portion of these moves incorporates absence of ward to explore violations on the internet,
absence of assets, absence of between state collaboration, nonappearance of enrollment rules
for logical officials etc. Some of these difficulties have been properly tended to in the past
passages. From one viewpoint, the logical proof shouldn't weaken the norm of verification in
criminal arraignments; then again, it would be inappropriate to deny to the law of proof
benefits to be acquired by new methods and new gadgets, gave the exactness of the recording

98
can be demonstrated. Such proof ought to constantly be respected with a few watchfulness
and evaluated in the radiance of the multitude of conditions of each case.

Nature of examination and documentation

(I) Police are regularly crippled in endeavor powerful examination for need of current
contraptions, for example, cameras, video hardware and so on. Scientific science labs are
scant and even at the locale level, there is no lab that can deliver opportune help to the
examining Police. Further, it is widely known that there is shortage of criminological and
digital specialists in police branches of different States. The outcome is that Police are
intensely inclined towards oral proof, rather than focusing on logical and incidental proof

(ii) Sufficient consideration and exertion aren't dedicated to inspecting and recording the
assertions of witnesses. Further, quickness in such manner is viewed as caring about.

(iii) The assertions/FIRs/reports recorded are not taken care of to the PC quickly either in
light of the fact that there is no PC organization or there is no staff prepared in the gig or for
need of explicit directions.

(iv) Sufficient consideration and time isn't presented in drafting the last reports/chargesheets.
Damaged charge-sheets without portrayal of every applicable truth and charge-sheets
unaccompanied by annexure are accounted for to be extremely normal and will generally
defer the procedures. This significant report which is typically ready by a 'Essayist' at the
Police Station, isn't painstakingly examined by the Station House Officer. The 'Author' posted
at weighty Police Stations is exhausted and can barely save the required time.

(v) The photos of blamed (not to talk about witnesses) are not fastened to the
chargesheets/capture Memos and so on nor even the ID marks are noted, making it hard to
recognize the blamed in the course for preliminary or to follow the slipping away denounced.
These are the issues before the examination apparatuses, taking into account this issue; it is
beyond the realm of possibilities for the examination offices to explore the specialized
wrongdoing or even cybercrime. Hence, the fundamental act of examination needs to change.
Most likely, the Indian government ordered different regulations and rules, which manage the
digital wrongdoing and its control, yet simple new standards and regulations, can't check the
issue without proper and logical examination in digital wrongdoing. The alteration in the IT
Act in 2008 has radically changed the idea of digital regulation in India. It presented different
new arrangement which is the digital wrongdoing in the review in the overall examination

99
process, however it isn't adequate to check the digital wrongdoing without the viable
execution and thoroughly prepared examination apparatuses. It is a moral obligation of any
individual working inside the section of computerized criminology to keep up with their
insight into the branches of knowledge they are engaged with. formal preparation is only one
course, yet there is likewise a huge measure of open-source data accessible for self
development and mindfulness. Proficient improvement can likewise be advanced by going to
gatherings and specialized studios, leading free examinations, conversations with well-
informed authorities and so on. Electronic proof can be a facilitator or an impediment,
contingent upon the kind of proof, the way things are utilized, and in what court it is
advertised. During the last 50% of the 20th hundred years, courts immediately perceived the
tolerability of PC based business and freely available reports. A few courts have reasoned
that "PC proof isn't naturally problematic," and they have become generally skilled at
managing the intricacy of electronic and computerized proof. In any case, courts have not
completely acknowledged this type of proof. Specifically, they are careful about innovation
being utilized in commission of wrongdoing, for example, the Internet, which can be gotten
to and controlled by a wide scope of clients. Courts have communicated their biases with
respect to Internet-based proof as "intrinsically deceitful." Today, courts think about
exceptionally complex advanced and electronic proof, from worldwide situating satellite
following information to electronic tollgate records. As electronic proof multiplies and
develops progressively perplexing, Indian courts are warier of its utilization and beginnings.
Then again, courts might keep on taking the "more adaptable assessment" and apply the
Rules much as they would for some other type of proof. Whichever approach the courts
follow, the Rules of Evidence given under the Indian Evidence Act are properly enhanced by
the Information Technology Act 2000.

100
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

 The Constitution of India, 1950.

 The Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973.
 The Indian Penal Code,1860.
 The Indian Evidence Act 1872.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Books

 C. Satish, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Allahabad Law Agency, 2012).

 ALAN M, GAHTAN, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (1999)
 ARTHUR PERCIVAL WILL, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE (2012).
 BILL NELSON, AMELIA PHILLIPS & CHRISTOPHER STEUART, GUIDE TO
COMPUTER FORENSICS AND INVESTIGATION (2010).
 Bindu Jindal ed. Gurmanpreet Kaur, CYBER STALKING AND VICTIMIZATION OF
WOMEN: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY, IN LAW AS A CATALYST OF SOCIAL
CHANGE IN PRESENT SCENARIO (2016).
 BILL NELSON, GUIDE TO COMPUTER FORENSICS AND INVESTIGATION
(2010)
 BIVAS CHATTERJEE, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (2015)
 RK Suri, Cyber Crimes (Pentagon Press, 2002).
 CHRIS L.T. BROWN, COMPUTER EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND
PRESERVATION (2006).
 J.S. Rajwant, “Victim Participation in Criminal Justice System”, CLJ (2012).
 DARREN R. HAYES, A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO COMPUTER FORENSICS
INVESTIGATIONS (2014).
 DARREN R. HAYES, A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO COMPUTER FORENSICS
INVESTIGATIONS (2014).

101
 DR. JEETENDRA PANDE, DIGITAL FORENSICS (2016).
 EMILY VIRTUE, COMPUTER FORENSICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR LITIGATION
AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION (2003).
 JACK BALKIN et al. CYBERCRIME: DIGITAL COPS IN A NETWORKED
ENVIRONMENT (2007).
 Hamda Bariki et al., DEFINING A STANDARD FOR REPORTING DIGITAL
EVIDENCE ITEMS IN COMPUTER FORENSIC TOOLS (2011).
 GORDON PELTON, INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTER FORENSICS WITH 33
REAL LIFE CASES (2011).
 JACK BALKIN et al. CYBERCRIME: DIGITAL COPS IN A NETWORKED
ENVIRONMENT (2007).
 Vivek Dubey, “Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: An Indian Perspective”, 4(2)
FRCINTJ (2017).
 JOHN R. VACCA, COMPUTER FORENSICS: COMPUTER CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATION (2004).
 KANELLIS, P ET AL., DIGITAL CRIME AND FORENSIC SCIENCE IN
CYBERSPACE (2006).
 KARNIKA SETH, COMPUTERS, INTERNET AND NEW TECHNOLOGY LAWS
(2016).
 NILAKSHI JAIN & DHANANJAY R. KALBANDE, DIGITAL FORENSIC: THE
FASCINATING WORLD OF DIGITAL EVIDENCES (2017).
 NISHESH SHARMA, CYBER FORENSICS IN INDIA: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
(2017).
 PAUL R. RICE, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: LAW AND PRACTICE (2005)
 PAVAN DUGGAL, JUDICIAL AND PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE LAW IN INDIA (2015)
 RAM JETHMALANI, D.S. CHOPRA, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE: COMMENTARY
ON EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (2013)
 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (2018)
 REBECCA MERCURI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE CHALLENGES IN COMPUTER
FORENSICS, (2010)
 SIR JOHN WOODROFFE & AMIR ALI, LAW OF EVIDENCE (2013).
 STEPHEN MASON, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (2010).

102
  V. NAGESWARA RAO, THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (2015).
 V. P. SRIVASTAV, AN INTRODUCTION TO CYBER CRIME INVESTIGATION
(2003).
 VEPA P.SARATHI, LAW OF EVIDENCE (2017).
 W. BLAKE ODGERS, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF THE LAW OF
EVIDENCE (1911).
 WILLIAM MACK & HARVARD P. NASH, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW AND
PROCEDURE (1905).
 B. Carrier, DEFINING DIGITAL FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS
TOOLS USING ABSTRACTION LAYERS, 1(4), INT. J. OF DIGITAL
EVIDENCE, (2003).

Articles

 Amitai Etzioni, “Implications of Select New Technologies for Individual Rights and
Public Safety”, 15(2) HARV. J. OF L. & TECHN (2002).
 Shaswati Das, “Cybercrime cases in India are under-reported, say experts” (13 Dec
2017)
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/kmE7EC9twVDn3DSIZlH8QM/Cybercrime-
cases-in-India-are-underreported-say-experts.html Last visited on 5 June, 2022
 Anne Wallace, “Using Video Link to Take Forensic Evidence: Lessons from an
Australian Case Study”, 17(3) INT. J. OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 221 – 49 (2013).
 Ashwini Vaidialingam, “Authenticating Electronic Evidence: S. 65B, Indian Evidence
Act, 1872”, NUJS L. REV. 43 (2015).
 Carrie Morgan Whitcomb, “A Historical Perspective of Digital Evidence: A Forensic
Scientist’s View”, 1 (1) INT’L J. OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE (2002).
 Christopher Wall & Jason Paroff, “Cracking the Computer Forensics Mystery”, 17 (7)
UBJ (2015).
 Prof. D. S. Jadhav , “Computer Forensic: An Evidence of various analytical tools for
legal constitution”, 1(2) IAI (2012).
 Raveena Rai, “Challenges to Cyber Crime Investigation: A Need for Statutory and
Infrastructural Reforms”, 5 CNLU LJ 62 (2015).
 Swapnil R. Kamdar, “The Scope of Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Science”, 58(3)
IND. POL. J. (2011).

103
 Deepak Kumar Ganguly & Asoke Nath, Digital Forensics – A Deeper Look into
Email Analysis, 7(5D) INT’L J. OF CURRENT ADV. RES. 12494 (2018).
 Dr. Richard Bassett et al., Computer Forensics: An Essential Ingredient for Cyber
Security, 3(1), J. INF. SYST. & TELECOMM. (2006).
 Kaushal B. Majmudar, Daubert v. Merrell Dow: A Flexible Approach to the
Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence, 7 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 187 (1993).
 Stefan Fafinski, “Access Denied: Computer Misuse In An Era of Technological
Change”, 70(5) J. OF CRIM. L. 424, 430 (2006).
 Yunus Yusof, “COMMON PHASES OF COMPUTER FORENSICS
INVESTIGATION MODELS”, 3 (3), INT. J. OF COMP. SC. & INF. TECH.
(IJCSIT), 19, (2011).
 Asou Aminnezhad, A Survey on Privacy Issues in Digital Forensics, 1 (4), INT. J.OF
CYBER SEC. & DIG. FORENSICS (IJCSDF) 1(4): 311-323.

104