Collection, Preservation, And Admissibility Of Electronic Evidence
Collection, Preservation, and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
Electronic evidence (also called digital evidence) refers to any information or data stored or transmitted in digital form that can be used in court. Examples include:
Emails, SMS, WhatsApp/Telegram messages
Computer files and databases
Digital photographs and videos
Social media posts
Logs from servers, networks, or devices
Digital financial transactions
1. Collection of Electronic Evidence
Collection refers to identifying, seizing, and extracting digital data in a legally admissible manner. Principles include:
Lawful Authority: Evidence must be collected under statutory provisions, e.g., Indian IT Act 2000 (Sections 65, 66, 67, 69), or US Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).
Integrity Preservation: Use write-blockers, checksums, and hashing algorithms to prevent alteration.
Chain of Custody: Detailed record of who handled the evidence, when, and how.
2. Preservation of Electronic Evidence
Preservation ensures that digital evidence is protected from tampering, deletion, or corruption:
Secure storage in forensic labs
Maintaining hash values to verify integrity
Limiting access to authorized personnel only
Documenting any transfer or duplication of data
3. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
Courts often apply strict criteria to admit electronic evidence:
Authenticity: Must prove the evidence is what it purports to be.
Integrity: No tampering or manipulation.
Relevance: Evidence must be directly connected to the case.
Expert Opinion: For complex digital evidence, courts often rely on certified experts.
Indian Legal Context:
Sections 65A & 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Specify the conditions for electronic records to be admissible.
Must include a certificate under Section 65B(4) to confirm integrity.
Case Law Analysis
Here are six landmark cases illustrating collection, preservation, and admissibility of electronic evidence:
Case 1: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (Aka Afzal Guru), 2005
Facts:
Involved terrorist activities, evidence included emails and intercepted communications.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court stressed authenticity and admissibility of electronic records.
Established that electronic evidence must be preserved in original format with proper chain of custody.
Set a precedent for digital data in terrorism-related cases.
Significance:
Highlighted the need for secure collection and integrity verification before admissibility.
Case 2: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors., 2014 (Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
The case dealt with WhatsApp messages and email evidence in a criminal matter.
Court Decision:
Held that electronic evidence is not automatically admissible.
Must comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory.
Emphasized the burden of proving authenticity and integrity of electronic records.
Significance:
Landmark ruling clarified admissibility requirements for digital evidence in India.
Case 3: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015
Facts:
Challenge to Sections 66A & 79 of IT Act concerning online posts and messages.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court examined the collection and regulation of electronic evidence related to online speech.
Highlighted the necessity of proper procedural safeguards to prevent unlawful seizure of electronic data.
Significance:
Established constitutional limits on electronic evidence collection, particularly regarding privacy rights.
Case 4: Mohd. Arif vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016
Facts:
Involved mobile phone records, SMS, and call logs in a murder investigation.
Court Decision:
Court admitted mobile data after verifying chain of custody and authenticity certificates.
Expert testimony confirmed that data was extracted without alteration.
Significance:
Reinforced principles of collection, preservation, and expert verification before admitting electronic evidence.
Case 5: State v. Sean McIntyre (UK, 2012)
Facts:
Involved computer hacking and data theft, digital files were critical.
Court Decision:
UK court emphasized proper forensic imaging and hash verification.
Admitted evidence based on expert certification and preserved original media.
Significance:
Demonstrated international standards for admissibility, especially forensic practices in electronic evidence.
Case 6: United States v. Microsoft Corp., 2016
Facts:
Case involved emails stored on foreign servers.
Raised questions about jurisdiction and admissibility of digital evidence.
Court Decision:
Ruled that evidence must be collected in accordance with legal procedures and cross-border laws.
Highlighted importance of procedural compliance in collection and preservation for admissibility.
Significance:
Shows that electronic evidence handling must meet both domestic and international legal standards.
Key Principles from These Cases
Section 65B Compliance (India): Mandatory certificate for admissibility of electronic records.
Integrity and Authenticity: Use hash values, forensic methods, and chain of custody documentation.
Expert Verification: Courts often rely on forensic experts to testify about evidence collection methods.
Procedural Lawfulness: Unlawful seizure or tampering can render electronic evidence inadmissible.
Privacy Considerations: Collection must respect privacy and constitutional rights.
Cross-Border Evidence: International cooperation may be required for data stored abroad.
RELATED Blog
comments