Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Supreme Court Clarifies Section 65B of Evidence Act

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shafhi Mohammad vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, addressed a significant legal issue concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The ruling clarified the procedural requirements for submitting electronic records as evidence in court, particularly when the party presenting the evidence does not have control over the electronic device that generated it.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a special leave petition filed by Shafhi Mohammad, challenging the procedural requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The key issue was whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) was mandatory in all cases or if there were exceptions.

Section 65B(4) mandates that a certificate must accompany electronic records presented as secondary evidence, certifying the authenticity and integrity of the data. The question before the Court was whether this requirement applied even when the party presenting the evidence did not have control over the electronic device that created it.

Key Legal Issues

• Is a certificate under Section 65B(4) mandatory for all electronic evidence?
• Can electronic evidence be admissible without a certificate if the party presenting it does not control the originating device?
• What are the implications of this ruling for law enforcement and criminal investigations?

Arguments by the Petitioner (Shafhi Mohammad)

The petitioner argued:

• Requiring a Section 65B(4) certificate in all cases creates an unfair burden on parties who do not control the electronic device generating the record.
• In criminal cases, law enforcement often relies on electronic evidence from sources beyond their control, such as CCTV footage or third-party communications.
• A rigid interpretation of Section 65B(4) would exclude valuable evidence simply because the party presenting it cannot obtain a certificate.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Himachal Pradesh)

The State defended the existing requirement, arguing:

• The certificate requirement ensures the authenticity and reliability of electronic records.
• Removing this requirement could open the door to fabricated or manipulated digital evidence.
• Allowing exceptions to Section 65B(4) would weaken safeguards against tampered electronic records.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined previous rulings on the subject and considered the practical challenges of enforcing a rigid certificate requirement. The Court noted:

• “If electronic evidence is authentic and relevant, it should not be excluded merely for lack of a certificate under Section 65B(4).”
• “The requirement of certification applies only when the person presenting the evidence is in control of the original electronic device.”
• “In cases where the evidence comes from third-party sources, such as CCTV footage, the requirement of a certificate can be relaxed.”

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that while Section 65B(4) remains the general rule for admissibility, courts may relax this requirement when:

• The party presenting the evidence does not have control over the originating electronic device.
• The electronic record is authenticated through other means, such as expert analysis or witness testimony.
• The interests of justice require the evidence to be considered despite the absence of a certificate.

Key Legal Precedents Considered

The Court referred to previous judgments, including:

• Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer (2014): Established the requirement for a Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence.
• State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005): Allowed electronic evidence without strict compliance with Section 65B.
• Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra (2012): Considered electronic evidence critical in terrorism cases.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for legal proceedings involving electronic evidence:

• Courts can now admit electronic evidence even without a certificate if the party presenting it cannot obtain one.
• Law enforcement agencies can rely on electronic records from third-party sources without being restricted by procedural barriers.
• The decision balances the need for authenticity with the practical realities of digital evidence collection.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh provides much-needed clarity on the admissibility of electronic records in legal proceedings. By allowing exceptions to the Section 65B(4) certification requirement, the ruling ensures that courts can consider digital evidence in cases where obtaining a certificate is impractical. This judgment strengthens the legal framework for handling electronic evidence while maintaining safeguards against misuse.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shafhi Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-01-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Cyber Crimes
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category