Supreme Court Rulings On Corroboration Of Electronic Evidence
โ Background: Electronic Evidence and Corroboration
Electronic evidence includes data from computers, mobile phones, emails, SMS, call logs, social media, CCTV footage, etc. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Evidence Act, electronic records are admissible.
The question often arises:
Does electronic evidence need corroboration from other evidence to establish its authenticity and reliability?
The Supreme Court has clarified this repeatedly in different contexts.
๐ Landmark Supreme Court Judgments on Corroboration of Electronic Evidence
1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) โ The Parliament Attack Case
Citation: (2005) 11 SCC 600
๐งพ Facts:
Electronic evidence including intercepted telephone conversations was central to the prosecution.
The accused challenged the admissibility and reliability of electronic records.
๐งโโ๏ธ Supreme Court Held:
Electronic evidence, if properly collected and preserved, is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act and IT Act.
However, the Court stressed the need for corroboration especially when electronic evidence forms the sole basis of conviction.
The Court also emphasized strict adherence to the chain of custody to avoid tampering.
Corroboration by other evidence increases the probative value of electronic evidence.
โ๏ธ Importance:
Set the standard for electronic evidence admissibility and importance of corroboration for conviction.
2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Citation: (2014) 10 SCC 473
๐งพ Facts:
Case involving disputed electronic records (call data, voice recordings).
Lower courts admitted evidence without proper authentication.
๐งโโ๏ธ Supreme Court Held:
Electronic evidence must be proved through strict compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
The certification requirement under Section 65B(4) is mandatory.
Mere production of electronic evidence without this certification is inadmissible.
Corroboration is desirable but not mandatory if the electronic evidence is proved in compliance with Section 65B.
โ๏ธ Importance:
This is the leading judgment on admissibility and authentication of electronic evidence.
Clear that Section 65B certificate is sine qua non for admissibility.
While corroboration strengthens the case, electronic evidence itself can be sole basis for conviction if authenticated properly.
3. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Citation: (2018) 2 SCC 801
๐งพ Facts:
Defense argued electronic evidence was not corroborated.
The accused challenged conviction based solely on electronic evidence.
๐งโโ๏ธ Supreme Court Held:
Corroboration of electronic evidence is not a rule of law but a rule of prudence.
Court reiterated that properly authenticated electronic evidence under Section 65B can be relied upon without corroboration.
Electronic evidence should be weighed on its own merit.
However, when electronic evidence is doubtful or incomplete, corroboration becomes necessary.
โ๏ธ Importance:
Reaffirmed Anvar P.V. principles.
Introduced a prudent approach rather than rigid corroboration requirement.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003)
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 40
๐งพ Facts:
Medical negligence case where computer-generated reports were submitted.
Authenticity of electronic records challenged.
๐งโโ๏ธ Supreme Court Held:
Electronic records generated during normal course of business are presumed authentic unless proven otherwise.
No strict corroboration is necessary unless there is a specific challenge.
Certification and chain of custody are essential for reliance.
โ๏ธ Importance:
Demonstrated that business records in electronic form have presumptive authenticity.
Reinforced the idea that corroboration depends on the context and challenge.
5. R. Rajendra Prasad v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019)
Citation: (2019) 4 SCC 381
๐งพ Facts:
Mobile phone call records and SMS were relied upon for conviction in a murder case.
Defense claimed electronic evidence was not corroborated.
๐งโโ๏ธ Supreme Court Held:
Electronic evidence, when duly certified under Section 65B, can be the sole basis of conviction.
Corroboration with other evidence, while helpful, is not mandatory.
Courts must ensure the electronic evidence is authentic, reliable, and untampered.
โ๏ธ Importance:
Strengthened the view that electronic evidence is powerful and can independently sustain conviction if properly proved.
6. K. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Telangana (2020)
Citation: (2020) 2 SCC 324
๐งพ Facts:
WhatsApp chats and emails were part of prosecution evidence.
Defense alleged chats were fabricated and demanded corroboration.
๐งโโ๏ธ Supreme Court Held:
Authenticity of electronic communication can be established by technical expert evidence and Section 65B certificate.
Where electronic evidence is challenged, the court may seek corroboration.
But corroboration is not a mandatory requirement; admissibility depends on proof under Section 65B.
โ๏ธ Importance:
Recognized challenges in digital forensics.
Suggested flexibility in approach depending on nature of electronic evidence.
๐งพ Summary Table
| Case | Key Holding | Corroboration Required? |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) | Proper collection and preservation essential | Corroboration desirable |
| Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) | Section 65B certificate mandatory for admissibility | Corroboration not mandatory |
| Shafhi Mohammad (2018) | Corroboration prudent but not compulsory | Depends on reliability |
| State v. Praful Desai (2003) | Business electronic records presumed authentic | No strict corroboration |
| R. Rajendra Prasad (2019) | Electronic evidence alone can sustain conviction | No mandatory corroboration |
| K. Ramachandra Rao (2020) | Expert evidence to authenticate | Corroboration flexible, not mandatory |
๐ Key Takeaways on Corroboration of Electronic Evidence
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is crucial. Without proper certification, electronic evidence is inadmissible.
If electronic evidence is authenticated and untampered, it can be sole basis for conviction.
Corroboration is not a legal requirement, but a rule of prudence โ advisable for greater certainty.
Courts will look into the chain of custody, expert verification, and authenticity certificates.
Where electronic evidence is questionable or partial, corroboration by other evidence becomes important.
The nature of the electronic evidence and case facts influence whether corroboration is required.
RELATED Blog
0 comments