Electronic Evidence Under Ict Act And Evidence Act
⚖️ 1. Concept of Electronic Evidence
Electronic evidence refers to any information stored or transmitted in digital form that can be used in a court of law. This includes:
Emails
CCTV footage
Computer records
Mobile messages
Social media posts
Server logs, etc.
Before the IT Act, 2000, only paper-based documents were admissible as evidence. However, with technological advancement, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was amended to recognize digital documents.
🧾 2. Relevant Legal Provisions
(A) Under the Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 2(1)(t) – Defines “electronic record.”
Includes data, record, image, or sound stored or sent in electronic form.
Section 4 – Legal recognition of electronic records.
Electronic records are valid if they fulfill the same conditions as paper documents.
Section 5 – Legal recognition of digital signatures.
Digital signatures are legally valid like handwritten signatures.
Section 65B of Evidence Act (read with IT Act) – Gives rules for the admissibility of electronic records.
(B) Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (as amended)
Section 65A – Special provisions relating to electronic evidence.
Admissibility of electronic evidence shall be governed by Section 65B.
Section 65B – Conditions for admissibility.
A printout or copy of an electronic record is admissible only if accompanied by a certificate stating:
The manner of production,
The device used,
The authenticity, and
That the computer was operating properly.
Section 22A – Oral admissions about electronic records are not relevant unless the genuineness of the record is in question.
Section 45A – Opinion of an examiner of electronic evidence is relevant.
⚖️ 3. Landmark Case Laws
🧑⚖️ Case 1: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 — Parliament Attack Case
Facts:
Electronic records (such as mobile call data and computer records) were presented as evidence in the Parliament attack case. However, certificates under Section 65B were not produced.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even without a 65B certificate, electronic evidence could be admitted if the original source (like the computer or device) was produced in court and properly authenticated.
Importance:
This was an early and liberal interpretation of Section 65B — but was later overruled by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014).
🧑⚖️ Case 2: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts:
The appellant relied on CDs of songs and speeches allegedly made by the respondent during an election campaign. However, no 65B certificate was provided.
Held:
The Supreme Court overruled Navjot Sandhu and held that:
Section 65B certificate is mandatory for admissibility of electronic records.
Secondary evidence (like a CD or printout) is not admissible without the certificate.
Importance:
This case strictly enforced Section 65B, establishing that no electronic record is admissible unless accompanied by the required certificate.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
Facts:
In this case, the video clip was recorded by someone else and presented in court. The party presenting it did not have access to the original device to obtain a 65B certificate.
Held:
The Court relaxed the rule from Anvar P.V., holding that:
If the party cannot produce a 65B certificate because the device is not in their control, the evidence can still be admitted if the court is satisfied with its authenticity.
Importance:
This introduced flexibility — allowing courts to admit electronic evidence without a certificate, in some circumstances.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
Facts:
The issue again concerned admissibility of electronic records (video recordings of election speeches) without a 65B certificate.
Held:
A three-judge bench reaffirmed Anvar P.V. and overruled Shafhi Mohammad, stating:
Section 65B certificate is mandatory for all secondary electronic evidence.
Only the person in control of the device can issue the certificate.
However, if the device itself is produced (the primary evidence), no certificate is needed.
Importance:
This case finally settled the law on electronic evidence. Section 65B compliance is a condition precedent for admissibility of secondary electronic evidence.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: Tomaso Bruno & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178
Facts:
The accused argued that CCTV footage from the hotel could prove their innocence. The prosecution failed to produce it.
Held:
The Court held that electronic evidence like CCTV footage is a vital form of evidence in modern times, and non-production without justification can lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Importance:
This case recognized the importance of electronic evidence in criminal trials and emphasized the duty of parties to produce it.
🧩 4. Summary of Legal Position (Post-Arjun Panditrao)
| Type of Evidence | Admissibility | Certificate Required? |
|---|---|---|
| Original device (primary evidence) | Admissible | ❌ Not required |
| Copy/printout/CD (secondary evidence) | Admissible only if Section 65B conditions are met | ✅ Required |
| Device not in possession | Can request the court to summon the device owner for certificate | ✅ Required, unless court obtains original |
✅ 5. Conclusion
The evolution of case law shows a clear trajectory:
Navjot Sandhu (2005) – Certificate not mandatory.
Anvar P.V. (2014) – Certificate mandatory.
Shafhi Mohammad (2018) – Relaxed requirement.
Arjun Panditrao (2020) – Reaffirmed strict requirement.
Tomaso Bruno (2015) – Highlighted importance of electronic evidence.
Thus, today, under the IT Act and the Evidence Act, an electronic record is admissible only if:
It satisfies the conditions under Section 65B, and
The authenticity of the record is established.
RELATED Blog
comments