Back
Electronic Evidence Lacking 65-B Certificate Cannot Substantiate Bribe Demand:
The has delivered a significant ruling on the required under the (), emphasizing that electronic evidence, specifically voice recordings, cannot serve as the sole foundation for conviction without strict adherence to . Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, while presiding over an appeal by two public servants, set aside their conviction, ruling that the prosecution's failure to provide a certificate under Section 65-B of the rendered crucial evidence .
Case Background: A Disputed Trap
The case originated from a complaint filed by Shyam Kumar Tiwari, whose wife, a school teacher, had her salary withheld. The complainant alleged that the appellants—Anil Markende, an Assistant Director of Education, and Ramesh Kumar Chouhan, a clerk—demanded a bribe of ₹5,000 for the release of these salary arrears. Following a organized by the (), Mr. Markende was apprehended, and currency notes were recovered from his pocket. The initially convicted both individuals under . The appellants challenged this conviction before the High Court, asserting that the proceedings were flawed, the voice recordings were manipulated, and no independent demand had been proven.
Arguments of the Prosecution and Defense
The defense argued that the case was a fabrication, pointing to significant procedural gaps. Notably, the complainant lodged multiple, contradictory complaints, and the alleged voice recordings remained in the complainant's custody for several days before being seized by the . Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove an authentic demand, which is the of a corruption offense. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that because no FSL report or expert voice authentication was performed, the recordings were inherently unreliable.
The State maintained that the recovery of the phenolphthalein-stained currency notes from the appellant's pocket was sufficient proof of guilt. They argued that the had appropriately weighed the presented by the trap proceedings.
Legal Analysis and Precedents
The High Court’s decision rested on the rigorous requirement for proving . Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark stance in and later reaffirmed in , the court reiterated that mere recovery of money does not satisfy the requirement for conviction unless a demand is proved .
Moreover, the court scrutinized the admissibility of the electronic logs. Following the principles in , the court held that a tape-recorded conversation is only admissible if four criteria are met: the voice must be identified, the accuracy must be verified, the must be sealed, and possibility of tampering must be ruled out. Because these guidelines were ignored—specifically the failure to obtain a Section 65-B certificate—the recordings were deemed unfit to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Key Observations
The judgment clarifies that courts must treat electronic evidence with heightened caution:
-
"In the absence of a certificate under , and in the absence of any voice sample or FSL report, the voice recording cannot be relied upon."
-
"It is a settled position in law that demand of is to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt."
-
"No certificate under was produced by the prosecution in respect of the ."
Implications for Future Cases
By quashing the conviction, the has sent a clear message to investigation agencies: shortcuts in the and evidentiary verification of digital records will not be tolerated. For legal professionals, this ruling reinforces the necessity of challenging the authenticity of electronic evidence in corruption trials. The acquittal highlights that in the absence of a proven demand, the “” under cannot be weaponized to sustain a conviction based on shaky, unverified records.
