Trace Your Case

Category: Electronic Evidence

Categories
Electronic Evidence

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

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.
Categories
Electronic Evidence

State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh AIR 1983 SC 684

STATE OF BIHAR V. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH

State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh AIR 1983 SC 684

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.

FACTS:

  • Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh of Bettiah Raj died issueless on March 26, 1893, leaving behind vast properties in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.
  • After his death, the estate was managed by his two widows: Maharani Sheoratan Kuer, who died on March 24, 1896, and Maharani Janki Kuer, who died on November 27, 1954.
  • Following the death of the widows, disputes over the estate arose between multiple claimants, including the State of Bihar (claiming escheat) and individuals asserting themselves as the nearest reversionary heirs.
  • Radha Krishna Singh and others filed T.S. No. 5/1961 in the Sub-Judge Court, Patna, claiming inheritance based on genealogical linkage to the Maharaja.
  • The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their genealogical connection to the Maharaja’s family.
  • On appeal, the Patna High Court reversed the trial court’s decision by a majority judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs had proven their genealogy. However, one judge dissented, agreeing with the trial court’s findings.
  • The State of Bihar appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the plaintiffs’ genealogical claims and the evidence relied upon, including Exhibit J, an entry in public records.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that while Exhibit J was admissible under the Evidence Act, it lacked probative value as the source and verification of its genealogical details were unreliable.
  • The plaintiffs failed to conclusively establish their genealogical connection to the Maharaja’s family, specifically proving that their ancestor, Ramruch Singh, was related to the Maharaja’s ancestor, Bansidhar Singh.
  • The Court emphasized that escheat claims by the State require proof of the absence of any heirs, which was not fully demonstrated in this case.
  • The appeal by the State of Bihar was allowed, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the suit by Radha Krishna Singh was dismissed.
  • The Court stressed the importance of clear and corroborated genealogical evidence in inheritance disputes to avoid fraudulent claims.
Categories
Electronic Evidence

Marwari Kumhar v. B.G. Ganeshpuri AIR 2000 SC 2629

MARWARI KUMHAR V. B.G. GANESHPURI

Marwari Kumhar v. B.G. Ganeshpuri AIR 2000 SC 2629

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.

FACTS:

  • The appellants, representing the Marwari Kumhar community of Dewas, used a temple and Dharamshala on the disputed property for religious functions and had engaged Ganeshpuri as a pujari.
  • After Ganeshpuri’s death on February 11, 1945, his son (Respondent No. 1) and wife (Respondent No. 2) claimed ownership of the property.
  • In December 1945, the appellants filed a representative suit in the Dewas Trial Court seeking a declaration of their title and rights to continue religious activities on the property. Respondent No. 1, a minor at the time, was represented by his mother.
  • The Dewas Trial Court decreed in favor of the appellants, holding that the respondents and their predecessor, Ganeshpuri, were merely pujaris without ownership rights.
  • The respondents appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment in their favor.
  • On May 7, 1948, the Dewas High Court reinstated the trial court’s decree, affirming the appellants’ title to the property.
  • Despite the finality of the 1948 judgment, the respondents resumed claiming ownership. The appellants filed the present suit on December 7, 1960, in the Dewas Trial Court, seeking possession of the property. They also claimed that Respondent No. 1 had executed a “Nokarnama” (acknowledgment of service) on October 31, 1948, but original documents, including the earlier judgment and the Nokarnama, were lost.
  • The respondents contested the suit, asserting ownership by adverse possession and claiming that the suit was barred under limitation and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
  • On September 20, 1968, the Dewas Trial Court decreed in favor of the appellants, holding that their title was proven based on the earlier judgment and that the respondents’ adverse possession claim was unsubstantiated.
  • The respondents appealed, and on November 1, 1974, the first appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the earlier judgment was inadmissible in evidence due to the absence of a certified copy and that the respondents had established ownership through adverse possession.
  • The appellants filed a second appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed their case on October 3, 1985, upholding the appellate court’s findings.
  • The appellants then moved the Supreme Court by way of a civil appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, challenging the judgments of the appellate court and the High Court.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the first appellate court (November 1, 1974) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (October 3, 1985), restoring the Dewas Trial Court’s decree dated September 20, 1968.
  • The Court held that the uncertified copy of the 1948 judgment was admissible under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act as secondary evidence, given that the original had been lost.
  • The earlier judgment conclusively affirmed the appellants’ title and was binding on the respondents under the doctrine of res judicata.
  • It was emphasized that the respondents had to prove when and how their possession became adverse after May 7, 1948. The respondents failed to provide any evidence to substantiate such a claim.
  • The Court dismissed the adverse possession argument, holding that the respondents’ possession remained that of pujaris and lacked the open, hostile, and adverse elements necessary to claim adverse possession.
  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, confirming the appellants’ title and granting them possession of the disputed property.
Categories
Electronic Evidence

Anvar v. P. K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473

ANVAR V. P. K. BASHEER

Anvar v. P. K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473

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.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Anvar P.V., contested the Kerala Legislative Assembly election on April 13, 2011, as an independent candidate supported by the Left Democratic Front (LDF). The first respondent, P.K. Basheer, supported by the United Democratic Front (UDF), was declared elected from the 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency.
  • The appellant alleged that the first respondent engaged in corrupt practices under Sections 123(2)(ii) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These included defamatory publications (Annexure-A leaflet) and misuse of songs, speeches, and posters during the election campaign.
  • The appellant claimed that Annexure-A falsely implicated him in a 1995 murder case, despite his acquittal, and alleged that the first respondent consented to the printing, publication, and distribution of this leaflet.
  • The appellant further alleged that CDs containing songs, speeches, and announcements used for the first respondent’s campaign were part of corrupt practices.
  • The Kerala High Court dismissed the election petition on April 13, 2012, stating that the appellant failed to prove the alleged corrupt practices or the first respondent’s consent to the acts.
  • Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition, arguing that the High Court erred in dismissing the case and disputing the treatment of evidence, particularly electronic records.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that electronic records must meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for admissibility.
  • It held that the CDs produced by the appellant lacked the mandatory Section 65B certification and were, therefore, inadmissible as evidence.
  • The court found no evidence to prove that the first respondent consented to the printing, publishing, or distribution of Annexure-A. It ruled that “consent,” rather than knowledge or connivance, is crucial for establishing corrupt practices under Section 123(4).
  • The allegations of corrupt practices related to Annexure-A, songs, and speeches were deemed unproven due to insufficient and inadmissible evidence.
  • The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision that the charges were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Categories
Electronic Evidence

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kaislash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1

ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR V. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kaislash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1]

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.

FACTS:

  • Two petitions challenged the appellant’s election to the legislative assembly.
  • The respondents claimed the appellant’s nomination papers were improperly accepted after the cut-off time.
  • Video recordings were produced as evidence, but no Section 65B certificate was provided.
  • The High Court admitted the videos without the certificate.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed Anvar PV, ruling that the Section 65B certificate is mandatory for electronic evidence.