Trace Your Case

SHAFHI MOHAMMAD V. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311

ISSUE:

  • Whether the interpretation of Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is done with regard to the admissibility of the electronic evidence?

RULE:

  • The legal position on the subject of the admissibility of electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of the device from which the document is produced, is that such a party cannot be required to produce a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  • The applicability of the requirement of a certificate being procedural can be relaxed by the Court wherever the interest of justice so justifies.

FACTS:

  • A criminal case was registered in Himachal Pradesh, leading to the conviction of Shafhi Mohammad by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on June 26, 2014.
  • The petitioner challenged the High Court’s judgment by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India in 2017.
  • The case was heard under the Supreme Court’s Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.
  • Key issues involved the necessity of videography for crime scene evidence collection and the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  • Discussions emphasized the practical challenges of securing certificates for electronic evidence when the party presenting it does not control the original device.
  • Reference was made to previous judgments on the procedural requirements for admitting electronic evidence, including Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
  • The Union Home Secretary and State Chief Secretaries deliberated on implementing videography at crime scenes, forming a Committee of Experts to draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
  • The Supreme Court clarified its jurisdiction in addressing procedural issues of evidence admissibility and establishing guidelines for technological advancements in investigation.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence if the party producing it is not in possession of the original device.
  • Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act were deemed procedural provisions, and their application can be relaxed if justice demands it, provided the authenticity of the evidence is established to the Court’s satisfaction.
  • Videography of crime scenes was recognized as a critical tool for enhancing the transparency and reliability of evidence collection. The Court called for the creation of a roadmap and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for its implementation.
  • The judgment stressed the importance of integrating technological advancements, such as electronic evidence and videography, into investigative practices to improve the justice system.
  • The matter was adjourned for further deliberations, particularly on finalizing the SOP for crime scene videography and addressing other relevant aspects.