Category: Electronic Evidence

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.

ISSUE:

Whether the plaintiffs (Radha Krishna Singh and others) established their genealogical connection to Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh to claim inheritance of the Bettiah Raj estate?

Whether Exhibit J and other evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs were admissible and sufficient to prove their claim?

Whether the State of Bihar’s claim of escheat could be upheld in the absence of proven heirs?

RULE:

Genealogical evidence must be admissible under the Evidence Act (Sections 35 and 32(5)) and hold sufficient probative value to prove claims.

Claims of escheat require the State to demonstrate conclusively that no heirs exist to inherit the estate.

ISSUE:

Whether the uncertified copy of the 1948 judgment could be admitted as evidence, considering that the original judgment was lost?

Whether the earlier judgment, which affirmed the appellants' title to the property, is binding on the respondents, preventing them from challenging the appellants' title in the current suit?

Whether the respondents could claim ownership of the property by adverse possession, despite the prior judgment that established the appellants’ title?

RULE:

Admissibility of Secondary Evidence: Under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act, an uncertified copy of a public document is admissible as secondary evidence if the original is lost or destroyed.

Res Judicata: A final judgment is binding on the parties under the principle of res judicata, preventing them from re-litigating the same issue.

Adverse Possession: To claim ownership by adverse possession, the party must show that their possession was hostile and adverse after the relevant judgment.

ISSUE:

Whether electronic records, such as CDs submitted by the appellant, can be admitted as evidence without compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the evidence presented by the appellant met the standard of proof required to establish corrupt practices akin to a criminal charge?

RULE:

Compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records.

Secondary electronic evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) certifying its authenticity; otherwise, it is inadmissible.

Allegations of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, akin to the standard required for criminal charges.

ISSUE:

Whether the video compact disks could be admitted in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

RULE:

A certificate under Section 65B is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records, to be provided by the individual who generated the copy from the device, provided the device was operational at the time the data was recorded and the copy was created.

If the original electronic document is produced, the certificate is not needed. The device owner can testify, but if the device cannot be presented, the certificate is required.
• Electronic evidence must be submitted before trial begins, but courts may allow certificate production later based on circumstances.