ADMISSIBILITY OF

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
UNDER THE INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT,1872
Presented to: Presented by:
Dr. Sabina Salim Prabhsimran Singh
82/18 BALLB
Section: B
 ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
 Under the Indian Evidence Act,1872, Section 61 to 65 deals with the procedure to
prove through primary evidence or by secondary evidence. Section 62 of the act
explains when the original document itself is not presented in the court the party can
provide secondary evidence by fulfilling the conditions under section 65 of the Act.
 The concept of “electronic evidence” has been introduced through the Information
Technology Act,2000 and the related amendments in the Evidence Act,1872.
 The Evidence Act was amended in 2000 by virtue of section 92 of the IT Act and the
term ‘evidence’ was amended to include “electronic record”, thereby allowing for
admissibility.
 Section 3 of the Act was amended and the phrase “All documents produced for the
inspection of the Court” was substituted by “ All documents including electronic
records produced for the inspection of the court, such documents are called
documentary evidence.
 Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records and admissibility of
electronic records were incorporated by way of Sections 65A and 65B.
 SECTIONS 65A AND 65B OF THE
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Section 65A provides as to “Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic
record- The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the
provisions of section 65B”.
Section 65B provides for admissibility of electronic records in Court proceedings. It state

that any record which is contained in any electronic or digital format shall be termed as a
document. And if the terms specified in Section 65B of the said Act are satisfied.
Under Section 65B (1), any information contained in an electronic record, which has

been stored, recorded or copied as a computer output, shall also be deemed as a

‘document’ — and shall be admissible as evidence without further proof or production of
the originals, if the conditions mentioned are satisfied. 
Section 65B (2) lays down the criteria that must be satisfied for the information to be

categorized as a ‘computer output’.

(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer
during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process
information 
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record was
regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly 
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such
information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. 
 Section 65B(3) provides that all the computers (interlinked or more) used for that
purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as
constituting a single computer. 
 Section 65B (4) states that if the electronic evidence is to be used in any judicial
proceeding, a certificate shall have to be produced which docs any of the following
things: 
1. Identifying the electronic record that is produced containing the statement and
also describing the method by which it was produced;
2. Providing for any such particulars of any device which was involved in the
production of that electronic record as may seem appropriate for the
establishment of the electronic record which was produced by a computcr;
3.  Dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions provided under sub-
section (2) relate to, and professing to be signed by a person who is occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or
the management of the relevant activities has to be the evidence of any matter
which is provided in the certificate, and in relevance to this subsection, it is to be
sufficient that the matter which is mentioned is to the best of the knowledge and
belief of the person who mentions it. 
 Section 65B (5) deals with the information supplied to the computer, and the
computer output produced directly with or without any human intervention. 
 TECHNICAL CONDITIONS AND NON-TECHNICAL
GROUNDS
Section 65B of the Evidence Act provides for both technical conditions and non-
technical grounds for admissibility of electronic evidence. Sub-section (2) of Section
65B of the Evidence Act lists the technological conditions upon which a duplicate
copy (including a print-out) of an original electronic record may be used. These are:
 a) At the time of the creation of the electronic record, the computer that produced
it must have been in regular use;
 b) The kind of information contained in the electronic record must have been
regularly and ordinarily fed in to the computer;
 c) The computer was operating properly; and
 d) The duplicate copy must be a reproduction of the original electronic record.
 As can be inferred the above conditions relate to veracity of the data. The
conditions have a two-fold impact as they i) ensure that there has been no
unauthorized use of the data; and ii) the device was functioning properly, ensuring
accuracy and genuineness of the reproduced data.
 Sub-section (3) of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is self-explanatory and
confirms that if the user has been using a networked device either to store or
process information, all the connected devices will be considered to be a single
device.
 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY

 Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act provides for the non-technical

conditions being the requirement of a certificate of authenticity. The
purpose of the certificate is to satisfy the conditions laid out by the
preceding sub-section (2) of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
 The certificate is to be executed/signed by a person occupying a
responsible position in relation to the device through which the data has
been produced.
 The certificate must identify the electronic record containing the
statement, describe the manner in which it was produced and also give
such particulars of any device involved in the production of the electronic
record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the
electronic record was produced by a computer. The certificate must also
deal with any of the matters to which the conditions for admissibility
relate. The entire idea behind the certificate is also to ensure the integrity
of the source and authenticity of the data, so that the Court may be able
to place reliance on it. This is critical since electronic data is more prone
to tampering and alteration.
 NCT OF DELHI V. NAVJOT SANDHU,2005
 In this case, the entire conspiracy was based on accused person’s intercepted call
records, the accused claimed- no reliance could be placed on the mobile telephone
call records because the prosecution had not produced a certificate section 65B(4).
 Issue: Is Certification Under section 65B(4) in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
mandatory for the production of electronic evidence?
 Held: Section 65B is not mandatory. Computer output can be taken as regular
secondary evidence. There’s no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other
provisions of the act namely, section 63 and 65. hence, even if the certificate is not
produced, the electronic evidence would be admissible.
 Analysis:The effect of such a judgment is that it negated the existence of Section
65B and widened the scope of secondary digital evidence, practically removing the
question of the necessity of certificate when filing digital evidence. This could be said
to be going against the spirit of the law as strict regulations were placed to ensure that
digital evidence presented to the Court was not tampered with. The requirement of the
certificate and verification by an authority in the field are safeguards to prevent false
evidence and the broadening of the law takes away these safeguards. 
 This case, by interpreting the law such that digital evidence was not bound solely by
Section 65B, opened the floodgates for all digital evidence and made the amended
provisions basically redundant. This position was challenged and changed in the
subsequent case of Anvar PV v PK Basheer & Ors. 
 ANVAR P.V. V. BASHEER 2014 SC
 Facts- Mr. Basheer was involved in tarnishing Mr. Anwar’s image and his character
by producing songs containing defamatory content on Compact Disk (Cds).
 Issue- Can courts admit electronic records as prima facie evidence without
authentication?
 Held- The Supreme Court declined to accept the admissibility of the electronic
records as prima facie evidence without authentication in the court of law. It was held
that in regard to any electronic record, for instance a CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same
must be accompanied by the certificate according to the terms of section 65B
obtained at the time of the taking the document, without which, the secondary
evidence pertaining to that electronic record is inadmissible.
Hence, strict compliance with section 65B is now mandatory for admissibility of the e-
mails, web sites or any electronic record in a civil or criminal trial before the courts in
India.
 The Supreme Court's ruling in Anwar PV, that a certificate under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act is compulsory for admission of electronic evidence overruled its earlier
decision in the case of Navjot Sandhu.
 ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR V. KAILASH
KISHANRAO GORANTYAL (2020) SC
 Section 65B(1) differentiate between the original electronic record, which is
contained in the computer in which the information is first stored and the secondary
copies that are made from the primary electronic record.
 The question as to- Whether a certificate under section 65B (4) would have to
be obtained even when an original copy of the electronic record is produced
as evidence.
The Court said that the requisite certificate in sub-section(4) is unnecessary if the
original document itself is produced.
 The question that Whether it was mandatory to comply with the provisions of
Section 65B(4) or can requirement to obtain a certificate be dispensed with.
The court said that the obligation placed by Section 65B(4) was mandatory, and
not voluntary and is a condition precedent before secondary copies of an electronic
record can be admitted.
 CONCLUSION
 The objective, to keep pace with the changing face of globalization, should be to
facilitate the use of information and telecommunication technologies not only in the
context of E-commerce, but also on a more individual, personal level.
 Technology is rapidly expanding at speeds too fast for society. The statute drafters
should thus be careful in applying strict rules, definitions and interpretations to the
subject matter. Yet, the framework must be broad and clear as to its content. With the
enactment of the IT Act, some of our fundamental issues are solved – the law
recognizes electronic counterparts of paper documents and signatures, they are
admissible in court and may be proved with few barriers such as requirement of
originals.
 We must acknowledge that electronic records are vulnerable to tampering and there is
no full-proof way of authentication and the acceptance and reliance on such forms of
evidence should be tailored to the needs of each case. Judges ought to exercise careful
discretion as to testing the integrity of the data. There must not be any strict method of
deciding this, as integrity depends on system of system. In the cyber age the evidence
of crime lies in the digital formats like e-mails, chats, documents, digital pictures, pen
drives, mobile phones etc. but the law enforcement agencies are handicapped in
understanding these technical evidences and therefore digital forensics training needs
to be imparted to them so as to crack cyber crimes.