Digital Evidence Collection And Admissibility
Digital Evidence: Meaning and Importance
What is Digital Evidence
Digital evidence refers to any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party may use in court. It includes:
Emails
Social media posts
Chat logs (WhatsApp, Messenger, etc.)
CCTV footage
Metadata
Documents from computers or mobile devices
Call records
Browser histories, GPS logs, etc.
⚖️ II. Collection of Digital Evidence
1. Preservation
Ensuring the digital evidence is not tampered with.
Original device should be preserved when possible.
2. Acquisition
Data is acquired using forensic tools (e.g., EnCase, FTK).
Clone images of hard drives, memory, etc. are created for analysis.
3. Authentication
Evidence must be shown to be what the party claims it is.
Done through hash values, digital signatures, metadata, etc.
4. Chain of Custody
Record of who handled the evidence from collection to court.
Critical to show that evidence has not been altered.
📜 III. Admissibility of Digital Evidence (Indian Law Focus)
Under Indian law, the primary provision for digital evidence is:
✅ Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Amended by the IT Act, 2000)
Section 65B(1): Electronic records are admissible if properly produced.
Section 65B(4): Requires a certificate by the person responsible for the device’s operation.
Without the certificate, digital evidence is generally not admissible unless exceptions apply.
🧑⚖️ IV. Landmark Case Laws on Digital Evidence
Here are detailed explanations of important cases that shaped the legal standards for digital evidence:
✅ 1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) - "Parliament Attack Case"
Facts: This case dealt with the 2001 Indian Parliament attack. The prosecution presented telephone call records and other digital evidence.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that even without a 65B certificate, digital evidence could be admitted if the original evidence is produced and it is otherwise relevant and reliable.
It treated the certificate requirement as procedural, not mandatory.
Significance:
This ruling was criticized as it diluted the mandatory nature of Section 65B(4).
It stood as precedent until overruled by a later case.
✅ 2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Facts: A political defamation case where the petitioner tried to submit CDs of speeches as evidence without the required certificate under Section 65B(4).
Ruling:
Supreme Court overruled Navjot Sandhu.
Held that electronic evidence is not admissible without compliance with Section 65B(4).
The certificate is mandatory unless the original device is presented in court.
Significance:
Set strict standards for admissibility.
Made it clear that secondary electronic evidence requires proper certification.
✅ 3. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Facts: The case involved a video recording being submitted without a 65B certificate.
Ruling:
Supreme Court relaxed the requirement of the certificate.
Held that if the party does not have control over the device, they cannot be expected to produce a certificate.
Significance:
Appeared to contradict Anvar.
Created ambiguity in the legal position regarding digital evidence.
✅ 4. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Facts: Involved the submission of WhatsApp messages and other electronic evidence.
Ruling:
A three-judge bench reaffirmed Anvar P.V. and overruled Shafhi Mohammad.
Clarified that Section 65B certificate is mandatory for secondary evidence.
However, if the original device is produced, no certificate is needed.
Significance:
Settled the confusion between earlier rulings.
Re-established the strict requirement for a certificate.
Emphasized the need for maintaining the chain of custody and integrity of evidence.
✅ 5. Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015)
Facts: The case involved Italian tourists accused of murder. The defense argued that CCTV footage could prove their innocence, but it was not collected by the police.
Ruling:
The court criticized the investigating agency for not collecting CCTV footage.
Emphasized that digital evidence like CCTV is crucial and must be properly secured.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of timely collection and preservation of digital evidence.
Helped shape procedural diligence in criminal investigations.
✅ 6. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – The Privacy Judgment
Relevance: Although not directly about digital evidence admissibility, the judgment discussed the nature of data, metadata, and digital footprints in the context of privacy rights.
Significance:
Recognized that digital data holds personal and legal significance.
Set the tone for handling digital evidence with due regard to privacy and legality.
Laid the groundwork for future arguments on data collection and surveillance.
🌐 International Cases
✅ 7. United States v. Antoine Jones (2012), US Supreme Court
Facts: Authorities used a GPS tracker on the suspect's car without a warrant.
Ruling:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that this violated the Fourth Amendment (protection from unlawful search and seizure).
Even though the GPS data was digital, its unauthorized collection made it inadmissible.
Significance:
Highlighted that digital surveillance must follow due process.
Evidence obtained unlawfully, even if digital, is not admissible.
✅ 8. R v. Fellows and Arnold (1997), UK
Facts: The case involved possession and distribution of indecent images of children stored digitally.
Ruling:
The UK court held that digital evidence, like computer files and images, are admissible as documentary evidence.
Recognized electronic records as equivalent to physical records for legal purposes.
Significance:
Early recognition of digital evidence in UK law.
Helped establish protocols for handling digital materials in criminal cases.
✅ Conclusion
Key Takeaways:
Digital evidence must be properly collected, preserved, authenticated, and certified.
In India, Section 65B of the Evidence Act governs admissibility.
The Anvar and Arjun Panditrao rulings are currently the governing precedent.
Chain of custody and device control are critical for admissibility.
Privacy laws and search and seizure principles also influence admissibility.
RELATED Blog
comments