Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Admissibility of electronic evidence requires strict compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, including providing a proper certificate and establishing the chain of custody of the electronic record, such as a pendrive or mobile phone containing video or audio files ["M. Arul Kumar VS P. Shanmugam - Madras"] ["Nimba Ram, S/o. Shri Kushala Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor - Rajasthan"] ["STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS RAMDAS RANGNATH SHINDE - Bombay"] ["Basant Kumar Bihani VS State Union Of India - Allahabad"] ["SIVA LAKSHMI vs RAJALETCHIMI - Madras"] ["Umer Ali S/o Abdul Hussain Vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Vikas Verma @ Vicky VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"] ["SARITA NATH D/O MAHENDRA AMARNATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["MARY LEONI vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"] ["Nimba Ram, S/o. Shri Kushala Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor - Rajasthan"].
To admit a pendrive containing a video captured on a mobile phone as evidence, the following are necessary:
The evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B, stating the device's ownership, the method of recording, and how the data was transferred or copied, with forensic verification if possible ["M. Arul Kumar VS P. Shanmugam - Madras"] ["Nimba Ram, S/o. Shri Kushala Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor - Rajasthan"] ["SIVA LAKSHMI vs RAJALETCHIMI - Madras"].
When copying videos or files from a mobile phone to a pendrive, it is crucial to:
Ensure the original device (mobile phone) is produced or its lawful possession is proved; mere transfer to a pendrive without proper certification and chain of custody may lead to rejection of evidence ["Vikas Verma @ Vicky VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"] ["SARITA NATH D/O MAHENDRA AMARNATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
The courts emphasize that failure to meet the procedural requirements, especially the non-submission of a proper Section 65B certificate and lack of proof of lawful possession, results in the rejection of electronic evidence, including videos stored on pendrives or mobile phones ["Nimba Ram, S/o. Shri Kushala Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor - Rajasthan"] ["Umer Ali S/o Abdul Hussain Vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Archana Gaidam VS Swapnik Gaidam - Madhya Pradesh"].
Summary:To admit a pendrive containing a video captured on a mobile phone as evidence, it must be demonstrated that the device was in lawful possession, the data was transferred without alteration, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is provided, detailing the process and chain of custody. Proper forensic verification and affidavit evidence are essential to establish authenticity and admissibility ["M. Arul Kumar VS P. Shanmugam - Madras"] ["Nimba Ram, S/o. Shri Kushala Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor - Rajasthan"] ["STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS RAMDAS RANGNATH SHINDE - Bombay"].
In today's digital age, videos captured on mobile phones and copied to pendrives (USB drives) via computers are increasingly pivotal in legal proceedings. But how do you ensure such evidence is admissible in court? This guide explores the process, requirements, and judicial insights under Indian law, focusing on how to admit a pendrive containing a video captured in a mobile phone copied to it through a computer in evidence and the key prerequisites.
Note: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and statutes. It is not legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Electronic records, including videos on pendrives, are governed primarily by . This section deems such records admissible as documents if specific conditions are met, especially requiring a certificate under to affirm the record's integrity, origin, and handling.
The in clarified: if the (e.g., the mobile phone) is produced in court, no certificate is needed. However, for copies like those on a pendrive, a certificate is mandatory to prove authenticity.
Courts treat pendrives, CDs, and similar media as documents when contents are reproduced, provided standards are followed.
Failure to comply can render evidence inadmissible, as seen in cases where call details lacked certification. Md. Sarfaraz Alam @ Sarfaraz Alam, son of Md. Moinuddin VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1037
Indian courts have upheld pendrive videos under strict protocols:
In , copied visuals on pendrives without certificates were rejected, stressing production or certification. Shivappa @ Shivanand Hittanagi, S/o. Vittal Hittanagi VS State of , Represented by Its Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 451
A notable example involves CCTV footage transferred to a pendrive: On , the data concerning the incident was transferred from the hard-disk... on to a Pendrive... The court admitted it due to requisite certification.
When a video is captured on a mobile, copied to a computer, and then to a pendrive:
Store pendrives in dust-free, temperature-controlled environments, labeled, and ideally in Faraday bags.
A forensic report (e.g., detailing extraction and integrity) is crucial. Expert testimony corroborates this, especially sans .
In one case, without explaining recording process to pendrive, evidence was rejected: the pendrive alleged to have contained the discussion... could not be accepted in evidence, since... nothing stated as to how the telephone discussion was copied...
Courts emphasize: The investigating officer was bound to demonstrate as to how the evidence was retrieved showing each process... clear link between the hardware and the digital evidence...
To maximize chances:- Obtain Section 65B Certificate promptly, signed by a responsible person.- Forensic Analysis: Engage certified labs for hash values verifying unaltered copies.- Document Everything: Seizure memos, labels, seals, witness statements on handling.- Produce Originals: Mobile/computer in court simplifies proof.- Expert Witnesses: Forensic experts to explain processes.
Section 65B presumes truthfulness , rebuttable by defense.
Admissibility hinges on authenticity, integrity, and compliance. By following these guidelines, electronic evidence from mobiles to pendrives can effectively support cases. Stay updated on evolving digital forensics standards.
Sources: , , , Shivappa @ Shivanand Hittanagi, S/o. Vittal Hittanagi VS State of , Represented by Its Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 451, , Sandeep. S. , S/O. Sukesan. B. VS Divya S. S. Rose, W/o. Aravind. S. G. - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 411, , Md. Sarfaraz Alam @ Sarfaraz Alam, son of Md. Moinuddin VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1037, , , Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, S/o- Late Stephen Daimari VS Mathu Ram Brahma @ Mudai, S/O Sri Rasama Brahma - 2022 Supreme(Gau) 684,
#ElectronicEvidence, #Section65B, #LegalEvidence
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely: –– (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly ... This facts gets fortification from the observation made in the FSL Report of the mobile phones recovered at the instance of Sapre as the phone number of the petitioner was not saved on both the sets. ... Admis....
This provision pertains to admitting a secondary evidence of primary evidence maintained in electronic form fed and stored in a computer. ... Any one can carry the mobile phone and move the device. It is not an evidence to prove that the owner of the phone or the SIM card holder carried that mobile and moved. ... It is a clear misadventure of the petitioner herein to convert a physical document maintained and under the custody of th....
PW 17 Pradip Thakare who accessed the mobile first and claims that he copied the conversation to pendrive received that mobile in police station from the Investigating Officer. ... He stated that there were more call recordings in the memory of mobile but he did not check it. He deposed that Samsung Galaxy Phone Mini mobile handset does not have in-built call recording software. He cannot explain how the pendrive came to police station and how the #H....
Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the objection of respondents be rejected and the photographs stored in the mobile phone filed by the petitioner may kindly be permitted to exhibit and admit in the evidence. ... In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case the trial Court has rightly considered that although mobile phone is the primary evidence, therefore, the trial Court has permitted the petitioner to o....
The prosecution case is based on electronic evidence as the offence was committed by the petitioner/convict over the mobile phone by making mobile phone call over the mobile phone of the victim. ... (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer duri....
When we were released on bail, the said mobile phone mentioned previously was not traceable. Thus the said mobile phone is now not available but, I say that the CD at sr. no. 2 (877/2) and sr. no. 6 (877/6) are true and correct data. ... The number of mobile phone is 8980309178 and in the said phone there was also a feature for recording calls. In the said phone I also recorded the conversation between Vasu and Satish Wadhwani on 25.12.2013. ... .......
Basheer and others reported in 2014 (10) SCC 473 and held that production of a certificate shall not be necesary when original electronic record is produced, that the original electronic record can be adduced directly as evidence if the owner of the computer / Tablet / mobile phone ... Section 65A of Evidence Act states that the contents of electronic records have to be proved as evidence in accordance with the requirements of Section 65B, which in turn, speaks of ....
According to the High Court, the electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footages was completely supported by the requisite requirements of law and could be read as evidence on record. ... (g) On 10.01.2011, the data concerning the incident was transferred from the hard-disk of said computer system on to a Pendrive and a Compact Disc by PW-19 Sanjay Nag. ... 7. 10.49.51: Kuldeep alias Bhandari goes outside while talking on mobile phone. 8. 11.02.18: Kuldeep alias Bh....
This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, a computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and / or operated by him. ... 65B in order to admit the document in evidence. ... Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of S.65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. ... An....
That apart, the pendrive alleged to have contained the discussion in between the petitioner and the wife of the PW11 also could not be accepted in evidence, since in the petitions, nothing stated as to how the telephone discussion was copied and recorded in the pendrive. ... According to the petitioner, the telephone discussion in between the petitioner and the wife of PW11 is from his mobile phone No.9526531245 and the wife of PW11 talked to him from her mobile #HL_S....
It is clear from a plain reading of section 65-B of the Evidence Act that any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by the computer shall be deemed to also be a document if the conditions mentioned in the section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in a proceeding without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein with direct evidence would be admiss....
From the abovesaid materials, it is seen that the mobile phone, seized from the defacto complainant, was sent, as per the directions of the competent court, to the C-DAC for expert forensics examination, and after conducting forensics examination, the C-DAC has also extracted the abovesaid voice clippings from the mobile phone and stored to a pen drive. Further, it appears that the abovesaid process of expert examination, by the C-DAC, is regarding forensics examination of the seized phone, and for extraction of voice clipping from the mobile phone, and storage to a pendrive.#HL_EN....
The investigating officer was bound to demonstrate as to how the evidence was retrieved showing each process through which he had accomplished the said objective. In the case of digital evidence stored in a computer, mobile phone, USB drive or digital camera, he should have ensured that there is a clear link between the hardware and the digital evidence copied from that hardware. He should have maintained a record to show the chain of custody which would address issues such as the person who collected the evidence, the nature and mode as to how the evidence was collected, t....
It is submitted that, no satisfactory explanation is given to such statement of petitioner. (c) That it is specifically stated in the petition that the contents of application dated 12.01.2017 was leaked to the accused after the same was submitted to the Naliya Police Station, which added miseries to the petitioner as the accused have started pressurizing and harassing the petitioner for withdrawing the application and for destroying the important piece of evidence i.e. Video Clips, Mobile Phones, etc. as once mobile phone in which a video clips are captured is destroyed then by no....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
