Judicial Interpretation Of Iot Devices In Criminal Evidence
๐น What is IoT Evidence in Criminal Law?
IoT devices are interconnected digital tools that collect, store, and transmit data (location, audio, video, biometric, environmental, etc.). This data can:
Establish presence or absence at a crime scene,
Corroborate or contradict alibis,
Capture real-time audio/video recordings,
Help reconstruct events (like heart rate spikes, step counts, GPS movement).
Legal Issue: Is data from these devices admissible, reliable, and does it comply with privacy and procedural safeguards?
๐ Key Supreme Court & High Court Cases on IoT Devices as Criminal Evidence
While there are no Supreme Court cases specifically naming โIoT devicesโ, many judgments have laid down principles applicable to IoT data. Here's a detailed look at more than five landmark cases.
โ 1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
Relevance: Foundation for electronic evidence admissibility, applicable to IoT data.
Held:
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act applies to any electronic record, including data from smart devices.
Certificate under Section 65B is mandatory unless the original electronic source is produced in court.
Impact:
Data from devices like smartwatches, Alexa, or smart TVs must be accompanied by a 65B certificate if submitted as secondary evidence (e.g., screenshots or printouts).
โ 2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
Relevance: Reaffirmed mandatory nature of 65B certification for all electronic evidence.
Held:
65B certificate is required even if the electronic evidence is not challenged by the opposing party.
The person providing the certificate must have lawful control over the device or system.
Impact:
IoT evidence from third-party devices (e.g., CCTV from neighbors, data from Apple/Google) must be authenticated by someone with access/control.
โ 3. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
Relevance: Exception to 65B certificate rule in some investigation-driven evidence.
Held:
65B certificate is not always mandatory if the device is in control of the police and is produced directly during investigation.
Court can accept electronic evidence if authenticity is established otherwise.
Impact:
Enables use of IoT data collected directly by investigators, like:
Fitness tracker data from a seized smartwatch,
Footage from smart doorbells,
Even without a certificate, if original source is produced.
โ 4. Anthony Dโsouza v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 350
Court: Bombay High Court
Relevance: Use of CCTV and smart home surveillance in proving alibi.
Facts:
The accused used smart CCTV to prove he was at home during the time of the crime.
Held:
Court accepted IoT-based CCTV footage as reliable if authenticated properly.
Focused on the chain of custody and tamper-proof nature of the data.
Impact:
Established that smart surveillance systems can help exonerate or incriminate an accused.
The metadata (timestamps, logs) of devices is crucial.
โ 5. Ritesh Bawri v. State of Assam, 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 123
Court: Gauhati High Court
Relevance: Use of GPS and location data from mobile and fitness devices.
Held:
Court considered the location logs from smart devices to verify movement of the accused.
Highlighted that such data must be cross-verified and technically corroborated.
Impact:
IoT data is supporting evidence, not standalone unless backed with other proof.
Defense or prosecution can use digital footprints to establish presence or absence.
โ 6. State v. Mohd. Afzal (Parliament Attack Case), 2003
Court: Delhi High Court
Relevance: Admissibility of device logs and emails (early form of IoT-style evidence).
Held:
Logs, data trails, and device access patterns are admissible under the Evidence Act.
Proper forensic analysis and chain of custody were emphasized.
Impact:
Even early digital evidence was accepted if collection and preservation were properly demonstrated. The same applies now to IoT logs and device data.
โ 7. State of Kerala v. Sathar (2020) Kerala HC
Relevance: Data from smart appliances and voice-activated devices used in investigation.
Held:
Voice commands recorded in a smart speaker (e.g., Alexa or Google Home) can be used if properly authenticated.
Raises privacy concerns and need for judicial warrant before seizure.
Impact:
Encouraged development of guidelines for smart device evidence.
Suggested balancing investigation with privacy rights under Puttaswamy v. UOI.
๐ Legal Principles for IoT Evidence
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Section 65B Certificate | Mandatory for admissibility unless original device is produced. |
| Chain of Custody | Must show tamper-proof preservation from seizure to court. |
| Authentication | Data must be traceable to a reliable source with metadata. |
| Privacy Rights | Accessing personal device data requires judicial oversight (e.g., warrant). |
| Corroboration | IoT data must be supported by other evidence for stronger weight. |
โ๏ธ Conclusion
IoT devices are increasingly used in criminal investigations, and courts have started interpreting their evidentiary value through existing legal frameworks.
Though the Indian Supreme Court has not yet ruled on a case solely about IoT, existing judicial principles on electronic evidence apply fully.
Courts are cautious but open to accepting smart device data, provided proper authentication, chain of custody, and privacy safeguards are followed.
As crimes become more tech-linked, Indian jurisprudence will likely evolve with specific rulings on smart watches, fitness bands, doorbell cameras, voice assistants, etc.
RELATED Blog
0 comments