Analysis Of Electronic And Digital Tracking In Criminal Cases
ANALYSIS OF ELECTRONIC AND DIGITAL TRACKING IN CRIMINAL CASES
Electronic and digital tracking refers to the use of technology and digital evidence to monitor, investigate, and solve crimes. This includes tools such as:
Call data records (CDRs)
GPS tracking
Email and social media tracking
Computer forensics
IP and location tracking
These methods are widely used in criminal investigations to establish evidence, track suspects, and prevent crimes.
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. Indian Context
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 65B: Admissibility of electronic records.
Information Technology Act, 2000
Sections 65-78: Deals with hacking, unauthorized access, and electronic evidence.
CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure)
Sections 91, 164, 164A: Powers for summoning electronic evidence and recording statements.
2. International Framework
Electronic Evidence Guidelines (UNODC)
Cybercrime Conventions (Budapest Convention, 2001)
3. Principles
Authentication: Electronic evidence must be verified.
Integrity: Chain of custody must be maintained.
Legality: Surveillance and tracking must follow due process.
Privacy Considerations: Use of tracking must balance investigative needs and individual privacy.
II. DETAILED CASE LAWS AND ANALYSIS
*1. State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) – Delhi High Court / Supreme Court
Facts
CDR analysis was used to trace the movements of accused involved in the 1993 bomb blasts.
Authorities relied heavily on electronic tracking of calls and locations.
Judgment
Court held that CDRs are admissible as evidence if properly certified and verified.
Recognized the use of electronic tracking as crucial to establishing the timeline and presence of suspects.
Importance
Landmark case for admissibility of call data records and digital tracking in criminal prosecution.
*2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) – Supreme Court
Facts
Dispute over the admissibility of electronic evidence obtained from emails and electronic storage devices.
Judgment
Supreme Court clarified Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act:
Electronic records must have a certificate of authenticity.
Evidence obtained without proper certification may be inadmissible.
Importance
Established strict compliance requirements for digital evidence.
Strengthened the legal framework for electronic tracking in investigations.
*3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Supreme Court
Facts
Questioned the use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests in criminal investigation.
Judgment
Court held that involuntary testing violates Article 20(3) and 21.
Emphasized the limits of electronic and digital surveillance where personal liberties are concerned.
Importance
Clarifies that digital tracking methods must respect constitutional safeguards, even if technologically effective.
*4. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) – Supreme Court
Facts
Focused on surveillance and privacy concerns in electronic monitoring.
Judgment
Court held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to Article 21.
Electronic tracking without authorization can violate privacy and constitutional rights.
Importance
Balances investigative utility of tracking with individual privacy.
Influences how law enforcement conducts digital tracking.
*5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Supreme Court (Privacy Case)
Facts
Challenge to government surveillance programs and biometric tracking under Aadhaar.
Judgment
Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right.
Any electronic tracking by the state must be lawful, proportionate, and necessary.
Importance
Provides constitutional framework guiding the use of digital tracking in criminal investigations.
*6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Supreme Court
Facts
Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act, dealing with criminal liability for online speech.
Judgment
Court emphasized legal safeguards in digital surveillance.
Highlighted importance of due process in tracking online activities.
Importance
Establishes that electronic tracking must comply with law and not infringe fundamental rights.
*7. State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) – Supreme Court
Facts
Evidence from digital storage devices and electronic records used in fraud cases.
Judgment
Validated authentication and integrity of electronic evidence.
Reinforced importance of chain of custody in digital tracking.
Importance
Clarifies procedures for collecting, preserving, and presenting digital evidence in court.
III. PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAWS
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Digital Evidence | Must comply with Section 65B | Anvar P.V. |
| Authentication & Integrity | Chain of custody critical | Praful B. Desai |
| Privacy & Constitutional Safeguards | Tracking must respect Articles 20 & 21 | Selvi, Puttaswamy |
| Utility in Criminal Investigation | CDR, GPS, emails can establish timelines | Navjot Sandhu |
| Limits on Involuntary Surveillance | Narco, polygraph, brain mapping need consent | Selvi |
| Legal Oversight | Surveillance must be authorized and proportionate | Shreya Singhal, Puttaswamy |
IV. CONCLUSION
Electronic and digital tracking is highly effective in:
Establishing timelines of suspects’ activities.
Tracing movements, communications, and transactions.
Detecting cybercrimes and fraud.
Assisting in speedy resolution of criminal cases.
However, effectiveness is tempered by:
Legal compliance: Evidence must meet Section 65B requirements.
Privacy and human rights: Digital tracking must not violate constitutional rights.
Proper authentication: Chain of custody and certification is crucial.
Ethical limits: Invasive techniques require safeguards against abuse.
RELATED Blog
comments