Digital Evidence Collection, Preservation, And Admissibility
π± Introduction: Digital Evidence in Indian Legal System
Digital evidence refers to any probative information stored or transmitted in digital formβincluding emails, CCTV footage, call records, computer files, mobile data, social media content, etc.
As cybercrime, digital transactions, and electronic communications grow, courts increasingly rely on electronic records to decide both civil and criminal matters.
βοΈ Legal Framework
πΉ 1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (as amended)
Section 65B: Deals with admissibility of electronic records.
Section 22A: Oral admissions regarding contents of electronic records are irrelevant unless the genuineness of the record is in question.
Section 45A: Expert opinion on electronic evidence is relevant.
Section 67A: Proof of digital signature.
πΉ 2. Information Technology Act, 2000
Provides legal recognition to digital signatures and electronic documents.
Defines offenses related to hacking, identity theft, data theft, etc.
π Key Concepts in Digital Evidence
| Stage | Key Principles |
|---|---|
| Collection | Must be done legally by authorized persons (police, forensic experts). |
| Preservation | Chain of custody must be maintained to prevent tampering. |
| Admissibility | Must comply with Section 65B; Certificate is crucial unless exceptions apply. |
| Authentication | Must prove that the device and data are reliable and untampered. |
π§ββοΈ Landmark Case Laws on Digital Evidence
1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Citation: (2014) 10 SCC 473
πΉ Background:
Dispute involving reliance on a CD as electronic evidence without a Section 65B certificate.
πΉ Legal Issue:
Can digital evidence be admitted without a certificate under Section 65B?
π§ββοΈ Verdict:
Overruled earlier position in State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005).
Held: No electronic record is admissible without a Section 65B certificate.
Only the primary electronic record or a certified copy under 65B is admissible.
𧩠Significance:
Established the mandatory nature of the 65B certificate, making digital evidence admissible only if duly certified.
2. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) β Parliament Attack Case
Citation: (2005) 11 SCC 600
πΉ Background:
Digital evidence like telephone call records and SIM cards were used in the prosecution.
πΉ Legal Issue:
Was Section 65B certificate mandatory for admissibility?
π§ββοΈ Verdict:
Held that even without a certificate, digital evidence could be admitted if the original device is produced.
This view was later overruled in Anvar P.V..
𧩠Significance:
Demonstrated the early liberal approach, later tightened for accuracy and reliability.
3. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Citation: (2020) 7 SCC 1
πΉ Background:
Concerned the necessity of producing a certificate under Section 65B.
π§ββοΈ Verdict:
Reaffirmed Anvar P.V. that 65B certificate is mandatory, even if the electronic evidence is produced by a party not in possession of the device.
However, if the device is in court custody or a neutral source (e.g., telecom company), courts can summon certificate later.
𧩠Significance:
Clarified practical issues around producing the 65B certificate and allowed procedural flexibility.
4. Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015)
Citation: (2015) 7 SCC 178
πΉ Background:
Murder case; CCTV footage was not produced by prosecution.
π§ββοΈ Verdict:
Supreme Court held that non-production of CCTV footage raises doubt about the prosecution's version.
Emphasized that electronic evidence is crucial and its absence can weaken the prosecutionβs case.
𧩠Significance:
Stressed the importance of collecting and preserving CCTV or digital footage in criminal trials.
5. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Citation: (2018) 2 SCC 801
πΉ Background:
Addressed challenges in producing 65B certificate when evidence is not in the control of the party.
π§ββοΈ Verdict:
Held that in such cases, court can allow electronic evidence without certificate, provided it is reliable.
Created an exception to Anvar P.V. but was later overruled in Arjun Panditrao.
𧩠Significance:
Though overruled, it highlighted the practical challenges in digital evidence handling and sparked reforms.
6. P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala (2019)
Citation: (2019) 5 SCC 1
πΉ Background:
Involved an actor accused of sexual assault; video footage was crucial evidence.
π§ββοΈ Verdict:
Supreme Court held that the accused has the right to access digital evidence under fair trial rights.
Directed proper preservation and forensic handling.
𧩠Significance:
Connected digital evidence handling with Article 21 (right to fair trial) and emphasized the integrity of forensic process.
𧩠Key Principles Derived from Case Laws
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mandatory 65B Certificate | Unless exempted, must produce certificate for electronic records. |
| Chain of Custody | Proven and documented to show no tampering occurred. |
| Integrity and Reliability | Courts admit only authentic and unaltered digital content. |
| Right to Fair Trial | Denial of access to relevant digital evidence can violate constitutional rights. |
| Expert Testimony | Forensic experts play a vital role in verifying authenticity. |
π οΈ Best Practices for Collection & Preservation
Use of forensic tools like EnCase, FTK Imager for exact copies (bitstream imaging).
Hashing (MD5/SHA) to ensure data integrity.
Proper documentation: Chain of custody logs.
Metadata preservation: Timestamps, location, and device details.
Isolation of original device: Prevents contamination.
βοΈ Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has gradually evolved a rigorous and technically sound framework for digital evidence, especially post-2014. Courts today emphasize:
Strict compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
The need for authenticity, integrity, and relevance.
Balancing technological challenges with constitutional rights like fair trial and free expression.
With digital evidence becoming central in everything from cybercrime to divorce proceedings, legal professionals must understand its technical and legal dimensions thoroughly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments