PROJECT

REPORT ON
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENTS,
DOG TRACKER, NEWSPAPERS, CELLULAR RECORDS AND
PHOTOGRAPHS
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURSE
B.COM LL.B. (HONS.) IN THE SUBJECT
OF
LAW OF EVIDENCE

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

PANJAB UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

MS. ARSHVINDER KAUR DINKAR JAIN
UILS,PU,CHD. 212/20
B.COM LL.B. SEC-D
SEMESTER - VII

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher

Ms. Arshvinder Kaur who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
project on the topic “Evidentiary Value Of Tape-Recorded
Statements, Dog Tracker, Newspapers, Cellular Records And
Photographs ”. While doing research on this project, I came to know
about a lot of things related to this topic.
Finally, I would also like to thank my friends who helped me a lot in
finalizing this project within the limited time frame.

Dinkar Jain
B.COM LL.B.
Section-D
212/20

2|Page
 Table of Contents

Sr. No. Particulars Page

No.
1 Introduction 4
2 Evidentiary value of Tape-recorded statements 5-7
3 Evidentiary value of Dog Tracker evidence 8-9
4 Evidentiary value of Newspapers 10-11
5 Evidentiary value of Cellular Records 12-13
6 Evidentiary value of Photographs 14-16
7 Bibliography 17

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION
The word evidence is used in common parlance in three different senses: (a) as
equivalent to relevant, (b) as equivalent to proof, and (c) as equivalent to the
material, on the basis of which Courts come to a conclusion about the existence or
non-existence of disputed facts.

Origin
As pointed out in the Hindu Dharma Shastra, the purpose of any trial is the desire
to find out the truth. And as per Manu, the King presiding over the tribunal shall
ascertain the truth and determine the correctness of the allegations regarding the
subject of the suit, the correctness of testimonies of the witness, the description,
time and place of the transaction or incident giving rise to the case as well as the
usage of the country and pronounce a true judgment. Hence, from then on
document, witness and possession came to be recognized as the kinds of evidence.

Al-Quran considers Justice as one of the attributes of God. And as per Muslim law,
there is no real concept regarding rule of evidence nor there were any codified
laws. However, Evidence was divided under the heads of oral and documentary in
Muslim Law.

In the British era, the laws relating to evidence were finally codified.

Definition
In layman's language, the word evidence refers to the proofs produced in the court
of law in favour or against the disputed facts. The word evidence is derived from
the Latin word evidentia meaning, distinction, vivid presentation, clearness.

According to Sir Blackstone:

Evidence signifies that that demonstrates, makes clear or ascertain the reality of the
facts or points in issue either on one facet or the opposite.

As per Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

Evidence means and includes Oral and Documentary evidence.

All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by

witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry (oral evidence) ; and

all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court
(documentary evidence).

4|Page
 Evidentiary value of Tape-recorded statements
The admissibility of tape-recorded conversations as evidence in Indian courts has
been a topic of discussion for a long time. The Indian Evidence Act, prior to its
amendment by the Information Technology Act, 2000, mainly dealt with evidence
that was in oral or documentary form. However, with the advent of technology, the
law has had to adapt to new forms of evidence.

In general, tape-recorded conversations can be admitted as evidence in court if they

satisfy the tests of relevance, authenticity, and reliability. The court has to face
various questions regarding the admissibility, nature, and evidentiary value of such
a tape-recorded conversation. Audio and video recordings are accepted as a valid
source of evidence and are considered relevant to the case and admissible evidence.

Admissibility under Indian Evidence Act

In certain, tape-recordings have been held to be relevant as evidence under res
gestae i.e. Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of the tape recorded
conversation/statement apart from being used for corroboration is admissible for the
purposes stated in Section 146 (1), Exception (2) to section 153 and section 155
(3) of the Evidence Act. 1
Under Section 2 (t) ‘ electronic record ’ means data, record or data generated,
image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or
computer generated micro fiche. Section 92 of this Act read with Schedule (2)
amends the definition of ‘evidence’ as contained in section 3 of the Indian Evidence
Act. The amended definition runs as under: “Evidence:-‘Evidence’ means and
includes-

(1) all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by
witness, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statement is called oral
evidence;

(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the
Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.

1
Section 155(3) reads: The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party,
or with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him:—
(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.

5|Page
From the aforesaid provisions it becomes amply clear that the law, as it prevails
today, takes care of information stored on magnetic or electronic device and treats it
as documentary evidence within the meaning of section 3 of the Indian Evidence
Act. Futher, Section 65B of the Act lays down the conditions for admitting
electronic records as evidence, including tape-recorded conversations. The
section requires that the electronic record containing the conversation must be
produced before the court accompanied by a certificate identifying the electronic
record containing the conversation and certifying that it was produced by a computer
during a particular period.

Case Laws
In Rup Chand v. Mahabir Parshad2, The court in this case allowed the tape-
recorded statement to be used under section 155(3) of the Evidence Act as a previous
statement to shake the credit of witness.
In N. Sri Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri3, the court held that like any document the tape
record itself was primary and direct evidence admissible of what has been said and
picked up by the receiver. Further, laid down that the evidence of the tape recorded
conversation/statement apart from being used for corroboration is admissible for the
purposes stated in Section 146 (1), Exception (2) to section 153 and section 155 (3)
of the Evidence Act.
In the landmark case of R. M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra4, the facts were
as follows- The accused, who appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction,
was the coroner of Bombay. A doctor, who was running nursing home, operated
upon a patient who afterwards died. It, being a post-operation death, became the
subject of post-mortem and inquest. The coroner persuaded the doctor to pay him a
sum of money if he wanted the report to be favourable to him. The payment was
arranged to be made through another doctor and the final meeting for this purpose
was to be settled by telephone call from the house of the other doctor. The Police
Commissioner was called with the tape-recording mechanism. This was connected
to the doctor’s telephone and thus the most incriminating conversation was recorded
in the presence of the police officer. This conversation was held to be relevant in the
instant case.
The Supreme Court of India further laid down the conditions governing the
admissibility of tape-recorded statements as evidence in court. The court held that

2
AIR 1956 Punjab 173
3
AIR 1971 SC 1162
4
AIR 1973 SC 157

6|Page
tape-recorded conversations are admissible as evidence if they satisfy the following
conditions:
1) The conversation is relevant to the matters in issue.
2) There is identification of the voice.
3) The accuracy of the tape-recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the
possibility of erasing the tape-recorder.
A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant transaction is a relevant fact and is
relevant under Section 8 of the Act. It is also res gestae and, therefore relevant under
Section 6. It is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident and is,
therefore, a relevant fact under Section 7 of the Act.

In Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Singh5, the Deputy Commissioner had left the
tape with the stenographer. That was held to be sufficient to destroy the authenticity
of the tape. The Apex Court laid down that:
1) The voice of the speaker must be recognized by the person who recorded or by
others who identify his voice for the admissibility of Tape-Recorded evidence.
2) If the creator refuses to identify the voice, it will need extremely precise
verification to verify whether or not it was indeed the speaker's voice.
3) The correctness of the tape-recorded statement must be shown by the person who
recorded the record by adequate direct or circumstantial evidence.
4) Any chance of tampering with or deletion of a portion of a tape-recorded
statement must be ruled out; otherwise, the remark may be rendered out of context
and therefore inadmissible.
5) The statement must be relevant, according to Evidence Act requirements.
6) The recorded cassette must be tightly sealed and maintained in safe or official
possession.
7) The speaker's voice must be discernible and not masked or distorted by other
noises or disturbances.

5
3 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 399

7|Page
 Evidentiary Value of Dog Tracker Evidence
Dogs are very proficient in the investigation by the police; they are considered as
knowledgeable and highly trained animals as they have a tremendous olfactory
sense, which helps to trace the offender. However, this evidence not been regarded
as strong evidence. The admissibility of dog tracker evidence in Indian courts has
been a topic of discussion for a long time. The Supreme Court of India has opined
that even the evidence of dog-tracking, if admissible, does not have much
weight.

The evidence of dogs is considered to scientific evidence. In India, evidence of

tracker dog is placed in Court with the force of Section 45 of the IEA, 1872 , which
has the provision of the experts' opinion. By this handler of a tracker dog can be
cross-examined to check the reliability of the sniffer dog’s evidence, and he can
establish the credibility of the tracker dog. In India till now, Judicial authorities have
not considered dog tracker evidence as influential in criminal proceedings. Indian
authority on the dog tracker evidence had been not uniform.

Case Laws
In Dafedar v State of Maharashtra6, the Supreme Court observed that there are
certain allegations that are typically raised towards dog tracking proof being
obtained. First, the dog cannot go into the box to give his testimony on pledge and
therefore submit oneself to cross-examination. The human partner of the dog will
have to go into the box and document the proof of the dog, but this is obviously
hearsay. Second, there is also the impression that the life and liberty of an individual
being cannot not rely on canine assumptions in criminal matters.

In Babu Magbul Shaikh V. State of Maharashtra7, following crucial objectives

have been laid down while determining the credibility of such evidence.
1) In a country like India, it is important to have a complete punchnama related to
the dog tracking evidence. Also, it should be supported by the testimony of the
handler.
2) There should not be any kind of inconsistency between the testimony of the
handler and the evidence recorded in the punchnama as presented before the court.

6
(1969) 2 SCC 234
7
(1993) CRILJ 2808

8|Page
3) The handler is bound to go through the process of cross-examination for
verification of the evidence provided.
4) The handler is expected to provide the Court with all necessary credibility factors
related to the dog such as its past performance, achievement, type of training, etc.
also it may be attested with documents.

In Abdul Razak V. State of Maharashtra8, the question whether the proof of dog
detection is permissible as proof and if so will that evidence would be considered on
a level with that of scientific professionals. The Court stated that the testimony of
the tracking dog trainer is valid and permissible in testimony, but that proof cannot
be viewed at the same level as the proof of blood or substances tested by science
experts. The Supreme Court stated that the proof of dog tracking is permissible, but
not typically of considerable weight and not at the same degree as the evidence of
science experts.

In Baldeviji Vajaji v State of Gujarat9, heavy reliance was placed on the landmark
judgments where dog tracking evidence was put into question and time and again
the courts have rejected this evidence. The court noted that it is a very poor scrap of
information and does not encourage any trust in the current context. It was
mentioned that it is not possible to eliminate the probability of a dog misinterpreting
the scent or misconstruing the path, or that such errors have occurred several times.

The first of them is the probability of mistake on the role of the dog or its owner. On
its heels, the likelihood of confusion between both the dog and its owner is near. It
was not possible to deny the probability of a mischaracterization or a false
conclusion from the dog's behaviour. The last, but not least, is the reality that there
is very little expertise and much confusion from a scientific viewpoint as to the
specific capabilities that allow sniffer dogs to detect and recognize offenders.
In Ramesh Ramchandra vs. the State of Maharashtra10, the Hon’ble court has
held that sole evidence of Dog handler should not be considered as a mere deciding
factor.

8
AIR 1970 SC 283
9
Decided on March 25, 2014,arising out of CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 606 of 2007 with CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 763
of 2007
10
2018 (4) Bom CR (Cri) 731

9|Page
 Evidentiary Value of Newspapers
The position regarding admissibility of newspaper report is settled. It is held to be
hearsay evidence which can be admitted under the provision relating to
secondary evidence i.e. Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862. Newspaper
reports are by themselves not evidence of the content contained in them. Further, a
newspaper is not the document referred to under Section 78(2) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, by which allegation can be proved. The presumption of
genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to a
newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of fact. Newspaper report must be
proved either by production of the reporter who heard the said statements and sent
them for reporting or by production of report sent by such reporter and production
of the Editor of the newspaper or its publisher to prove the said report.

Case Laws

S. P. Shenbagamoorthy v. Dr. Chenna Reddy11

The Madras High Court held that newspaper reports are by themselves not evidence
of the content. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. In this case, neither the
reporter nor his report produced can amount to proving the contents of the newspaper
reporter. Newspaper is secondary evidence and is not admissible without any
proper proof of the content under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The judge
cannot treat the newspaper as duly proved by the production of copies of the
newspaper.

In Laxmi Raj Shetty And Anr v. State of Tamil Nadu (1988), wherein the court
held that the notice of facts stated in newspapers cannot be taken unless it is proved
by evidence. It is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not the document referred
to under Section 78(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by which allegation can be
proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of fact. The
facts contained in the newspaper are merely hearsay evidence and are inadmissible
in a court of law.

11
[1994 (2) MWN (Crl.) 121

10 | P a g e
In Naval Kishor Sharma v. State of UP12, the Hon’ble Court observed that it is
trite law that there must be “legal evidence” in support of the allegations levelled
against a person and as in the present case the only evidence relied upon is the
newspaper reporting that is not “legal evidence” and just a “hearsay evidence”, thus,
the said orders are upheld. In this case, a complaint was filed in 2019 by the
petitioner against Chief Minister of U.P. Yogi Adityanath for offences under
Sections 295(A), 298, 419, 420, 501 of the Penal Code, 1860, as in 2018 he
addressed a public meeting with regards to the general Vidhan Sabha Elections in
Rajasthan, in which he stated certain words for Lord Bajrangbali due to which the
religious sentiments of public who are followers of Sri Bajrangbali have been hurt.
The Petitioner submitted that the said fact has been read by him and other persons
in daily newspapers due to which the religious sentiments of other persons also got
hurt. The Court viewed that the backbone of the present complaint is the news
published in a local newspaper and the complainant and his witnesses were not
present in the said meeting where the words as said to have been hurt their religious
sentiments, faith and have caused disrepute to Lord Bajrangbali. It was further
observed that the reporting in the newspaper must be fortified whether it is
correct or not, as it is hearsay secondary evidence and unless the person
reporting it is examined, it is not admissible. The court placed reliance on the
decisions in Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez, (1969) 3 SCC 238;
Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of T.N., (1988) 3 SCC 319; Quamarul Islam v. S.K.
Kanta, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 5; Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of U.P., (2020) 16
SCC 811; Kushum Lata v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180 and Rohit Pandey
v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 702, and observed that newspaper report by
itself do not constitute evidence of the contents of it and are only hearsay
evidence. They must be proved either by production of the reporter who heard
the said statements and sent them for reporting or by production of report sent
by such reporter and production of the Editor of the newspaper or it’s
publisher to prove the said report; thus, newspaper report is not “legal
evidence” which can be examined in support of the complainant.

In the case of Dinesh B.S V. State of Karnataka13, the division bench comprising
Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal relied on Laxmi Raj Shetty & Anr.
v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1988) 3 SCC 319 and reiterated that a newspaper report is
only hearsay evidence and it can only be treated as secondary evidence under the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

12
2022 SCC OnLine All 677, decided on 30.09.2022
13
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 851 & 852 OF 2011; JULY 27, 2023

11 | P a g e
 Evidentiary Value of Cellular Records
Cellular records can be used as evidence under the Section 65B Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. Call records are considered to be electronic records under Section 2(t) of
the Information Technology Act, 2000. This means that call records can be used as
evidence in a court of law to prove the existence of a communication, the time and
date of the communication, and the identity of the parties involved in the
communication.
Earlier, the view taken by the courts was that whether or not the requirements of
Section 65B(4) are satisfied, secondary evidence of such call records should be
allowable under Sections 63 and 65. However, this position is changed in view
of the recent judgment in the case Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal.

Controversy with regard to admissibility under Sections 63 and 65

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu14, the Apex Court while considering the
print out of the computerized records of the calls pertaining to the cell phones in
view of the production of the electronic record held as follows: irrespective of the
compliance with the requirement of section 65–B, which is a provision dealing with
the admissibility of the electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary
evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, sections 63 &
65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub-section (4) of Section
65-B is not filed in the instance case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence
cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the
circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, sections 63 & 65.
In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer15 held that Sections 63 and 65 have no application
to secondary evidence by way of electronic record as this is wholly governed by
Sections 65A and 65B. Thus, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu was
overruled by the Supreme Court in this case.
In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh16, the Supreme Court held
that the requirement of producing a certificate under Section 65B(4) is procedural
and not always mandatory. A party who is not in possession of the device from which
the document is produced cannot be required to produce a certificate under Section
65B(4). .

14
(2005) 11 SCC 600
15
(2014) 10 SCC 473
16
(2018) 2 SCC 801

12 | P a g e
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal17, the Hon’ble
Court held that certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory, and a condition
precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record. The non-
obstante language of Section 65B(1) makes it clear that when it comes to information
contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the
drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf. Sections 63 and 65
are irrelevant for this purpose.
Thus, the position with regard to admissibility is clear i.e. certificate under Section
65B(4) is mandatory and resort to Sections 63 and 65 cannot be taken.

Relevance and Guidelines

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu18, the Apex Court made the following
observations-
1) Call records of cellular phones are stored in huge servers, which cannot be
easily moved and produced in Courts.
2) The nature of evidence to show that there has been no improper use of a
computer and that it was functioning properly would vary from case to case.
3) It would be very rarely necessary to call an expert.
4) In normal cases it would be possible to discharge the burden of proving proper
functioning by calling a witness who is familiar with the operation of the type
of computer in question.
The Court further went on to hold in the instant case that “It could not be held that
there was any manipulation or material deficiency in the computer on account of the
errors pointed out. Therefore, the printouts pertaining to the call details exhibited by
the prosecution are of such regularity and continuity that it would be legitimate to
draw a presumption that the system was functional and the output was produced by
the computer in regular use, whether this fact was specifically deposed to by the
witness or not. We are therefore of the view that the call records are admissible
and reliable and rightly made use of by the prosecution.”

17
2020 SCC OnLine SC 571
18
(2005) 11 SCC 600

13 | P a g e
 Evidentiary Value of Photographs
As per Illustration (a) of Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act, if it can be
sufficiently proven that the document from which the photograph was taken was
an original document, then the photograph of the original can be used as
secondary evidence of the contents of that original, despite the fact that the
original and the photograph do not need to be specifically compared. Now, Section
65 B of the Evidence Act deals with admissibility and authenticity of electronic
records which includes photographs as well.

Conventional Photography v. Digital Photography

 Digital photographs exist as digital data. Unlike conventional photographs,

no film or paper are employed in their capture or storage. The image is
captured and stored in the “disk drive” or “the chip”. Although digital
photographs may ultimately be displayed in a printed form, it is not necessary
to do so – they can just be easily displayed on a monitor screen or, there never
need be an analogue representation of the scene or image. Digital photography
uses an array of electronic photo-detectors to capture the image focused by
the lens, as opposed to an exposure on photographic film. The captured image
is then digitised and stored as a computer file ready for digital processing,
viewing, digital publishing, or printing. Until the advent of such technology,
photographs were made by exposing light sensitive photographic film, and
used chemical photographic processing to develop and stabilise the image. By
contrast, digital photographs can be displayed, printed, stored, manipulated,
transmitted, and archived using digital and computer techniques, without
chemical processing.

 While digital photography has many advantages over the conventional

photography, one of the disadvantages it has is the risk of tampering with the
image. Unlike conventional photograph which was hard to tamper with, the
easy availability of software permit manipulation of images.

Case Laws
In the matter of Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra19, The photograph
may be admitted as evidence if the court is convinced that there was no
manipulation of the image and that it is free from suspicion. It is always admissible
to prove the document's contents, but subject to the precautions listed, to prove the
document's authorship. This is especially true in India under Section 10 of the

19
AIR 1968 SC 938

14 | P a g e
 Evidence Act for proving conspiracy involvement. Detection and proof of crime
will become not only difficult, but often impossible, if conspirators began
exchanging letters via pictures instead of the originals. As a result, many
conspiracies will remain unproven, as one of the most common tactics is to
intercept a letter, photograph it, and then forward it while awaiting a reply.
Nevertheless, images as evidence of writing or handwriting are only admissible if
the original cannot be retrieved and the photographic reproduction is accurate and
not a forgery or a false copy. In the current instance, no such proposal exists, and
the originals are unavailable due to the accused's suppression. Photographic proof
of the document's contents and handwriting was admissible.

In Arun Balakrishnan Iyer v. Soni Hospital, the Court held that photographs
cannot be taken as evidence unless their negatives are also produced.

In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan20, the court observed as under:

 “Relevance, admissibility and authentication of photographs have always posed

a problem for the courts. These issues were limited as long as the courts were
dealing with conventional photography using a camera with a film. The film was
treated as the ‘primary’, or the best evidence for the photograph taken. Thus, the
courts required that the ‘negative’ be produced, and be proved by the photographer.
An unquestioned belief entertained by the court was that the ‘print’ of the negative
was an authentic copy of the negative. However, over the last four decades
photography has undergone a technological revolution. From the conventional
photography, the world has moved into the era of digital photography.

In Santhosh Madhavan @ Swami Amritha Chaithanya v. State21, the court held

that depending upon the requirement of proving the authenticity, theories dealing
with photographs are divided into two categories. They are:

 (i) aid a witness in explaining his testimony (Pictorial testimony theory) –E.g. a
doctor explains injury with the help of a photograph; identification of a deceased
with photo.);

 (ii) probative evidence of what those evidence (photo, X-ray etc.) depict (Silent
witness theory) – (E.g. X-ray film; a photograph showing accused – in a crowd –
armed with weapon, though the photographer did not see him; photograph of a scene
of occurrence of a crime.)

Witnesses may, with their personal knowledge, state that a photograph is a fair and
accurate representation of the fundamental facts appear therein. In such a case, the

20
2014-1 Raj Cri C 31
21
2014 KHC 31

15 | P a g e
evidence of the witness will be the primary matter rather than what is depicted in the
photograph; and the the photographer need not be examined in court, inasmuch as
the photograph is admitted merely to aid a witness in explaining his testimony.

They are, explained by Wigmore as, ‘nothing more than the illustrated testimony of
that witness’. This principle gives rise to Pictorial testimony theory or
communication theory.But, when a photograph itself is taken as as probative and
substantial evidence of the matters appear therein, it acquires the glorified status of
independent ‘silent witnesses’. In such cases, there should be cogent evidence
before the court, to admit the photograph in evidence.

Photo identification
Photo identification has been held to be valid in Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v.
Narcotic Control Bureau, (2000) 1 SCC 138, and Vasudevan v. The State, 1993 CrLJ
3151 (Ker). But in Sahadevan Sagadevan v. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai,
AIR 2003 SC 215, the Apex Court did not accept the identification through the
photograph, after nearly 7 years. Similarly, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
@ Afsal Guru, AIR 2005 SC 3820, ‘in regard to the identification of the photograph
of deceased terrorist’, the evidence was not accepted because it did ‘not inspire
confidence, in view of the time lag of 8 months’.

16 | P a g e
 Bibliography
Books referred
Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of The Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications

Websites referred
www.scconline.com
www.blogipleaders.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.livelaw.in

17 | P a g e