Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Supreme Court Mandates Crime Scene Videography

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment in the case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, addressed the crucial issue of the admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal investigations. The case revolved around whether videography of a crime scene should be made mandatory and how electronic evidence should be treated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The bench, comprising Adarsh Kumar Goel and Rohinton Fali Nariman, underscored the need for modern investigative techniques to improve the criminal justice system. The ruling paved the way for the introduction of crime scene videography as a standard practice in India and relaxed certain procedural requirements for admitting electronic evidence.

Background of the Case

The case arose from the need to incorporate technology into criminal investigations. The Supreme Court noted that several advanced countries had already adopted videography in crime scene investigations, which significantly enhanced the quality of evidence collection. The central issue was whether electronic evidence, particularly videographic recordings, should be considered valid even if a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act was not furnished by the person producing it.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether crime scene videography should be made mandatory.
• Interpretation of Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act regarding the requirement of certification for electronic evidence.
• Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for electronic evidence collection and handling.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

• Electronic evidence is crucial for ensuring the integrity of criminal investigations.
• The requirement under Section 65B(4) to produce a certificate from the person controlling the electronic device was impractical, especially for individuals who obtain digital evidence from sources not in their possession.
• Several jurisdictions had adopted crime scene videography as a best practice, and India should follow suit.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Himachal Pradesh opposed the petition, arguing:

• Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly mandates certification for electronic records, and relaxing this requirement could lead to manipulation of evidence.
• Implementing crime scene videography across all police stations in India would require substantial financial and logistical resources.
• Existing investigative procedures were sufficient, and any additional technological requirements should be phased in gradually.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined various international practices and legal precedents before ruling on the matter. It cited cases such as Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh (1985), Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) to emphasize that technology should be integrated into law enforcement.

“Technology is an important part in the system of police administration. It has also been noted in the decisions quoted in the earlier part of this order that new techniques and devices have evidentiary advantages, subject to the safeguards to be adopted.”

Key Findings by the Supreme Court

The Court ruled:

• Crime scene videography is a desirable and acceptable best practice and should be implemented nationwide.
• The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is procedural and can be relaxed by the court if the interest of justice so requires.
• The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) should formulate a roadmap for implementing videography in crime scene investigations.
• A Central Oversight Body (COB) should be established to monitor and facilitate the process.

Implementation Plan

The Court approved the Centrally Driven Plan of Action proposed by the Committee of Experts, which included:

• Phase I (3 months): Concept development, preparation, and pilot project launch in select cities and districts.
• Phase II (6 months): Implementation of pilot projects in identified police stations.
• Phase III (3 months): Review and refinement based on pilot project findings.
• Phase IV (1 year): Expansion to all cities with a population above 10 lakhs and districts with over 20 lakh people.
• Phase V (1 year): Full implementation across all remaining districts and cities.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court directed:

“With a view to implement the Plan of Action prepared by the Committee, a Central Oversight Body (COB) shall be set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs forthwith. The COB will be responsible for further planning and implementation of the use of videography in investigations.”

The Court also noted that funding for the project should be facilitated by the central government, and each state should create a steering committee to oversee local implementation.

Implications of the Judgment

• This ruling strengthens the evidentiary value of electronic records in Indian courts.
• It streamlines investigative procedures by making crime scene videography a standard practice.
• It relaxes procedural barriers that previously hindered the admissibility of digital evidence.
• It mandates the integration of modern technology into law enforcement, making criminal investigations more transparent and reliable.

This judgment is a milestone in the evolution of criminal investigations in India, ensuring that technology plays a crucial role in upholding justice.

Petitioner Name: Shafhi Mohammad.
Respondent Name: State of Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Place Of Incident: Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 03-04-2018.

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 03-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Cyber Crimes
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 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