Sahayata & Sahayata

  INTRODUCTION The Kerala High Court, in this judgment, addressed the mandatory requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The court also clarified that an expert’s report under Section 293 of the CrPC cannot substitute this statutory requirement. The case revolved around the legal necessity of compliance with evidentiary standards while admitting electronic records in judicial proceedings. SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT The court held that: Certificate under Section 65B is Mandatory: Any electronic record sought to be used as evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Expert’s Report under Section 293 CrPC is Not a Substitute: A forensic expert’s opinion cannot override the statutory requirement of a certificate under Section 65B. Judicial Precedents Affirmed: The court relied on prior Supreme Court rulings that upheld the mandatory na...

  Introduction The document provides an in-depth analysis of electronic evidence under Indian law, particularly focusing on the amendments brought by the Information Technology Act, 2000, to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It discusses the admissibility, proof, and reliability of electronic records in legal proceedings, highlighting key judicial precedents and statutory provisions, including Section 65B of the Evidence Act and its equivalent under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Summary Electronic evidence encompasses digitally stored or transmitted data, including emails, video recordings, text messages, and call logs. The Indian Evidence Act was amended to include electronic records as documentary evidence. Key provisions such as Sections 65A, 65B, and 67A govern the admissibility of electronic records, proof of electronic signatures, and related presumptions. The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, introduces refinements, expanding the scope of electronic evidence and str...

Case Details: Date: 17 July 1984 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Syed Murtaza Fazalali, A. Varadarajan, Sabyasachi Mukharji Citation: 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88 Background: The case revolves around the death of Manjushree (Manju), wife of the appellant Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda. The prosecution alleged that Manju was poisoned (potassium cyanide) by the appellant due to his alleged illicit relationship and mistreatment of his wife. The defense argued that Manju committed suicide out of emotional distress and frustration. Charges: Section 302 IPC (Murder) Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) Section 201 IPC (Causing disappearance of evidence) Trial Court Judgment: Sharad Sarda sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC. All three accused (Sharad, his brother, and uncle) sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fined under Section 120B IPC. High Court Judgment: Confirmed the death sentence of Sharad Sarda under Section 302 IPC. Acquitted the other two ac...