Role Of Technology In Evidence Collection And Admissibility
1. Introduction
The rise of digital technology has transformed the way evidence is collected, preserved, and presented in courts. Today, evidence is not limited to physical documents or eyewitness testimony; it includes electronic records, CCTV footage, digital communications, biometrics, and forensic data.
Key Concepts:
Electronic Evidence (E-evidence): Information stored or transmitted in digital form, such as emails, social media messages, digital photos, and bank transactions.
Admissibility: Courts must determine whether digital or technological evidence meets legal standards of authenticity, reliability, and relevance.
Applicable Laws:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 65A & 65B for electronic records)
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 65, 66, 66C, 66E)
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for seizure and preservation
2. Role of Technology in Evidence Collection
Technology aids investigations in multiple ways:
| Technology | Role in Evidence Collection |
|---|---|
| CCTV & Surveillance | Captures real-time events and helps track suspects. |
| Mobile & Computer Forensics | Recovers deleted files, messages, call logs, GPS data. |
| Digital Signatures & E-documents | Authenticates transactions and official records. |
| Biometrics (Fingerprints, Iris, Face ID) | Links suspects to crime scenes. |
| Voice Recordings & Phone Taps | Captures confessions, instructions, or threats. |
| Social Media & Online Data | Establishes communication, intent, and conspiracy. |
3. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005, Parliament Attack Case)
Facts:
The case involved the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. The prosecution used electronic intercepts and communication records to track terrorists.
Technology & Evidence:
Call data records (CDRs) of suspects were collected.
Emails and digital records showing planning and coordination were admitted.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court held that properly authenticated electronic evidence under IT Act and Evidence Act is admissible, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
Key Takeaway:
Digital evidence like CDRs and emails is legally recognized, provided it is collected lawfully and authenticated.
Case 2: Anvar P.V vs. P.K. Basheer (2014, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Anvar P.V challenged the admissibility of CDs submitted as evidence in criminal cases, claiming lack of proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Legal Principle:
The Supreme Court clarified that:
Electronic records require a certificate under Section 65B to be admissible.
Without such certification, digital evidence cannot be relied upon.
Outcome:
The judgment emphasized strict adherence to legal procedure for e-evidence admissibility.
Key Takeaway:
Authentication certificates are mandatory for electronic evidence; technology alone does not guarantee admissibility.
Case 3: Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Facts:
The case questioned whether electronically generated logs and reports could be admitted without expert testimony.
Technology & Evidence:
The court examined computer-generated printouts and logs.
Expert testimony was used to verify the accuracy of the digital data.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court held that electronic evidence must be verified by technical experts to ensure reliability.
Key Takeaway:
Courts recognize the need for technical validation when using technology-based evidence.
Case 4: State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai (1995)
Facts:
In a medical negligence case, digital X-rays and medical scans were submitted as evidence.
Technology & Evidence:
The court accepted digital scans as primary evidence, provided authenticity was verified.
Expert opinions corroborated the digital material.
Outcome:
This was an early example where technology in evidence collection enhanced reliability and clarity in civil and criminal matters.
Key Takeaway:
Even before IT Act provisions, courts accepted technological evidence when authenticity could be established.
Case 5: State vs. Navjot Sandhu & Others (Nirbhaya Rape and Murder Case, 2012–2017)
Facts:
The Nirbhaya case involved brutal sexual assault and murder. Digital evidence played a crucial role.
Technology & Evidence:
Mobile phone call records established the presence of accused.
CCTV footage traced movements of suspects.
Digital medical records and forensic analysis were used to reconstruct events.
Outcome:
Courts emphasized that digital evidence, when collected through proper procedure, is as credible as physical evidence.
Key Takeaway:
Technology not only aids in evidence collection but can be decisive in high-profile trials.
Case 6: State of Telangana vs. Venkata Rao (2019)
Facts:
This cybercrime case involved financial fraud and online threats.
Technology & Evidence:
Computer forensics uncovered deleted transaction logs and email communications.
Mobile phone GPS and app activity were retrieved to establish timelines.
Outcome:
The court relied heavily on technically validated digital evidence to convict the accused.
Key Takeaway:
Modern technology enables the reconstruction of events and establishment of intent, critical for conviction in complex cases.
4. Key Principles from Case Laws
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Authentication is Mandatory | Section 65B certificate ensures electronic evidence is admissible. |
| Expert Verification | Courts require forensic or technical validation of digital data. |
| Lawful Collection | Evidence obtained illegally (e.g., unauthorized hacking) is inadmissible. |
| Parity with Physical Evidence | Digital evidence has equal weight as physical evidence if authenticated. |
| Integration with Other Evidence | Technology complements forensic, testimonial, and circumstantial evidence. |
5. Conclusion
Technology plays a critical role in modern investigations by providing tools to collect, preserve, and analyze evidence. Indian courts have consistently held that:
Digital evidence is admissible if properly authenticated and collected legally.
Technical expertise is essential to verify reliability.
Courts integrate CCTV, mobile, computer, and social media evidence with traditional forensic methods for stronger prosecution.
Cases like Anvar P.V, Navjot Sandhu, Shafhi Mohammad, and Nirbhaya demonstrate that technology not only supports but often makes or breaks a case, especially in cybercrime, murder, and high-profile investigations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments