Case Studies On Electronic Evidence
Electronic evidence includes any information stored or transmitted in digital form—emails, CCTV footage, computer records, call detail records (CDRs), social media content, server logs, mobile phone extractions, etc.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, electronic records are admissible under:
Section 65B – Admissibility of electronic records
Section 2(1)(t) IT Act – Definition of “electronic record”
Section 67A – Proof of electronic signature
Section 45A – Expert opinion on electronic evidence
Section 22A – Oral admissions about electronic records
Section 59 & 60 – Provisions on documentary evidence
The most crucial is Section 65B, which requires a certificate (commonly called the 65B Certificate) when relying on a copy of an electronic record.
⭐ Case Studies & Detailed Case Law Explanations
Below are 6 major landmark judgments that shaped the law on electronic evidence.
1️⃣ State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) — “Parliament Attack Case”
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Issue: Is a 65B certificate mandatory for electronic evidence?
Facts
In the prosecution of attackers on the Indian Parliament (2001), the police relied on:
Phone call records
SIM card data
Computer records
The question arose whether such electronic evidence required a Section 65B certificate.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held:
A 65B certificate is not mandatory if the electronic evidence is supported by other evidence or produced in original form.
Oral evidence and other secondary evidence could also be used.
Why It Was Important
For years, this ruling allowed courts to admit electronic evidence even without proper certification.
But it was overruled in 2014 (see next case).
2️⃣ Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Three-Judge Bench)
Key Issue: Is Section 65B certificate absolutely mandatory?
Facts
This was an election petition where the petitioner relied on electronic records including CDs containing songs allegedly used to influence voters.
Judgment
The SC overruled the Navjot Sandhu judgment.
It held:
A Section 65B certificate is mandatory for electronic evidence when the record is not produced in original form (i.e., computer/device itself).
Secondary electronic evidence is inadmissible without proper certification.
Importance
This case revolutionized Indian cyber evidence law.
Courts now strictly required a 65B certificate for:
CCTV footage copies
CD/DVD
Pendrive data
Email printouts
WhatsApp chats
Server logs
3️⃣ Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Two-Judge Bench)
Key Issue: Whether 65B certificate is required when the party does not have control over the device?
Facts
In a road accident case, video footage from a private person was required.
The litigant did not have control over the device that recorded the video.
Judgment
The SC relaxed the Anvar P.V. rule:
If the electronic evidence is from a device beyond the control of the party, the court can admit it without a 65B certificate.
Importance
This created confusion because it contradicted Anvar P.V..
4️⃣ Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Three-Judge Bench)
Key Issue: Definitive ruling on 65B certification.
Facts
This case involved video recordings used during an election dispute.
Judgment
The SC clarified all previous contradictions:
65B certificate is mandatory for electronic evidence unless the original device is produced in court.
The certificate must be issued by a person:
who operates the device
in lawful control of the device
familiar with the process of data production
The Shafhi Mohammad judgment was overruled.
Importance
This is now the law of the land.
Courts cannot accept electronic evidence without 65B certification (unless original device is brought and examined).
5️⃣ Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Issue: Adverse inference for failure to produce CCTV footage.
Facts
In a murder case, the hotel had CCTV cameras installed, but the footage was not produced by the prosecution.
Judgment
The SC held:
Modern investigation must use electronic evidence.
Not producing CCTV footage when available can lead to adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
Importance
This case emphasized:
Duties of investigation agencies
Value of electronic evidence in criminal trials
6️⃣ Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Issue: Admissibility of audio-video recordings
Facts
Audio-video tapes of political speeches were used as evidence.
Judgment
The SC held:
Tape recordings are admissible if
their accuracy is proved,
the voice is properly identified, and
no tampering is shown.
Importance
Before the IT Act era, this case laid early principles that now apply to all digital evidence.
⭐ Additional Relevant Case Laws (Brief Notes)
7️⃣ Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana (2017)
Electronic evidence produced without 65B certificate cannot be relied upon.
Defect cannot be cured later unless certificate is produced.
8️⃣ Kanchan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2015)
CCTV footage is admissible only if chain of custody and 65B requirements are fulfilled.
9️⃣ Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan (2015)
Call recordings admissible only with proper authentication.
⭐ Conclusion
Electronic evidence today is one of the strongest forms of proof, but its admissibility depends strictly on compliance with Section 65B, especially after Arjun Panditrao (2020).
Key Takeaways
| Rule | Current Legal Position |
|---|---|
| 65B certificate needed | Yes, for any electronic evidence copy |
| Certificate not needed | If original device is produced before court |
| Shafhi Mohammad (2018) | Overruled |
| Leading authority | Arjun Panditrao (2020) |
RELATED Blog
comments