Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 63
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
Ram @ Ramprasad
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station (Law and Order), Trichy
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 18495 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2013
Decided on: 7 January 2014
S. Veera Kathiravan, for Petitioner
P. Kandasamy, Govt Advocate (Crl. Side), for Respondent
The main legal point established is that under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, electronic records, including compact discs, are considered as evidence, and the accused is entitled to a copy for cross-examination.
Headnote:
Section 65(B) - Electronic Evidence - The court held that under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner is entitled to a copy of the compact disc as electronic evidence, and failure to provide it would deny the accused the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the 5th accused in a criminal case, requested a copy of a compact disc (C.D) as material evidence for cross-examining witnesses. The State objected, arguing that the C.D was not a document under Section 29 IPC and Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the State's contention, citing Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 29(A) of the Indian Penal Code, and directed the committal Court to furnish a copy of the C.D to the petitioner to enable cross-examination of witnesses.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compact disc could be considered as material evidence under the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Penal Code, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a copy for cross-examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 29(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which recognized electronic records as evidence and entitled the accused to a copy for cross-examination.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order and allowed the petition, directing the committal Court to furnish a copy of the compact disc to the petitioner for cross-examination of witnesses.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 6052/2013 in P.R.C. No. 17 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Trichirapalli, dated 04.10.2013.
2. The petitioner in this petition is the 5th accused in Crime No. 1863 of 2013 for an offence under Section 323 IPC. There are other accused involved in other offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, but any how that is not an issue in this petition.
3. At the time of trial, the witnesses were examined and the material documents have been marked. One of the material document is a videograph and the other one is compact disc (C.D). The petitioner/accused in this petition filed a petition asking the committal Court to furnish a copy of the C.D and not the original C.D. The respondent/State filed a counter objecting to that stating that it is not a document as per Section 29 IPC and Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and this Compact Disc(C.D) need not be given to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner contended that in view of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which was inserted by Act 21 of 2000 with effect from 17.10.2000, the compact disc is also a material document and the electronic document has got to be furnished for the purpose of cross-examining the witnesses. If such document is not given, he would be put to great hardship and no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the witness.
5. For the sake of convenience, Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 29 IPC are extracted below:
“Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Document- “Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
“Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code:
Document- The word “document” denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.
Explanation 1.- It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of justice or not.
Explanation 2.- Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.”
6. The contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 29 IPC does not deal with an electronic document, cannot be accepted, as it would amount to giving narrow interpretation to the provision of the Indian Evidence Act and IPC and more particularly, after the introduction of Section 65(B). Apart from that, on the very same date i.e. on 17.10.2000, Section 29(A) was introduced in IPC introducing the definition of electronic record, which reads as follows:
“Section 29 (A) . Electronic record- The words ‘electronic record’ shall have the meaning assigned to them in clause(t) of sub-section(1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).
Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 reads as follows:
(t) “electronic record” means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.”
7. This Court is not accepting the contention of the respondent. In terms of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 29(A) of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is entitled for a copy of the compact disc and the committal Court namely the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Trichy is directed to proceed with the matter after furnishing a copy of the Compact Disc(C.D) to the petitioner. If such d
