Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Whatsapp Forward without Original - Not Admissible as Evidence Court rulings emphasize that secondary evidence, such as photocopies or screenshots of WhatsApp messages, cannot be considered reliable unless the original messages are produced or properly authenticated under the Evidence Act, specifically Section 65B. For instance, ["Manish Minda vs Alka Minda - Telangana"] states, The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. Similarly, ["Zeenie Gill Sandhu VS Ashok Kumar Goyal @ Rajja - Punjab and Haryana"] notes, The paper print out of the alleged Whatsapp message has not been certified as contemplated under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.Analysis and Conclusion: Courts generally require the original WhatsApp messages or certified digital evidence to establish authenticity. Mere screenshots or photocopies, without compliance with legal standards like Section 65B, are insufficient and cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence. This underscores the importance of proper proof procedures for electronic evidence, especially WhatsApp forwards, to be admissible in court.
Authentication and Certification Requirements for Electronic Evidence Several sources highlight that digital evidence, such as WhatsApp chats, must meet specific certification criteria to be admissible. ["G.Thangasamy Nadar (died) vs Dr.D.Rajkumar - Madras"] states, A paper print out of the alleged Whatsapp message has been marked as Ex.B1. The said paper print out has not been certified as contemplated under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.Analysis and Conclusion: Without a proper Section 65B certificate, even printed screenshots of WhatsApp conversations lack legal admissibility. Courts stress that authenticating the evidence through proper certification is essential for it to be considered credible and admissible, preventing reliance on unverified electronic copies.
Use of WhatsApp Evidence in Court Proceedings Courts recognize that WhatsApp messages, if properly authenticated, can serve as relevant evidence, but only if they comply with legal standards. ["Sheshnath Sharma, S/o-Late Krishna Nand Sharma vs Sunidhi Sharma, W/o-Sheshnath Sharma, D/o. Surendra Sharma - Jharkhand"] notes, The contents of WhatsApp messages cannot be accepted as gospel truth without proper proof.Analysis and Conclusion: While WhatsApp evidence can be relevant, courts exercise caution and require strict proof of authenticity. Forwarded messages or screenshots alone are insufficient unless accompanied by original data or certified copies, emphasizing the need for procedural rigor in digital evidence submission.
Limitations on Forwarded WhatsApp Messages as Evidence Several cases clarify that forwarded messages, especially those not originating from the sender, do not automatically carry evidentiary weight. ["S.M.JAGATHISH KUMAR vs STATE REP BY - Madras"] states, These WhatsApp chats are photocopies and are not such evidence which can be said to be of impeachable quality.Analysis and Conclusion: Forwarded messages, without original proof or certification, are generally considered weak evidence. Courts caution against relying solely on such copies for substantive findings, highlighting the importance of original or properly certified evidence for establishing facts.
Implications for Evidence in Criminal and Civil Cases Courts have consistently held that electronic evidence must meet procedural standards, including authenticity, to be admissible. ["Nimba Ram, S/o. Shri Kushala Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor - Rajasthan"] emphasizes, Even the copy of the contents of P1 made through the laptop cannot be taken as copy of the original contents.Analysis and Conclusion: The absence of original WhatsApp conversations or certified copies hampers the court's ability to rely on such evidence. Proper procedures, including certification under Section 65B, are critical to prevent the courts from acting on unverified or potentially tampered evidence.
Summary:A WhatsApp forward, without the original message or proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be considered valid evidence in court. Courts require original electronic records or certified copies to establish authenticity and admissibility. Mere screenshots or photocopies of WhatsApp chats, especially if unaccompanied by certification, are deemed weak and unreliable evidence, emphasizing the necessity for procedural compliance in digital evidence handling.
In today's digital age, WhatsApp messages are often pivotal in legal disputes, from family matters to criminal cases. But what if it's just a forwarded message without the original? A common question arises: Whatsapp Forward without original cannot be evidence. Is this true? Generally, yes—courts in India have ruled that such electronic records are inadmissible without proper authentication under the Indian Evidence Act. This blog explores the legal nuances, Supreme Court precedents, and practical insights to help you understand when digital chats hold weight in court.
Electronic evidence, including WhatsApp messages, is governed by Section 65-B, which deems computer-generated records admissible only under strict conditions. The standout requirement is a certificate under Section 65-B(4), signed by a responsible person, identifying the record, its production method, and authenticity. Without it, forwards, screenshots, or printouts are typically inadmissible. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
Key points include:- Mere production of printouts or screenshots without the certificate fails to prove authenticity. JAGMAIL SINGH VS KARAMJIT SINGH - 2020 7 Supreme 527ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405- The Supreme Court has emphasized this as a mandatory condition. Oral testimony or magistrate attestation doesn't suffice. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), the Court clarified: The certificate required under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
Forwarded WhatsApp messages lack the original metadata, making them secondary evidence. Courts demand the original electronic record or the certificate to verify integrity. A forward without these is unreliable—it could be altered, out of context, or fabricated. JAGMAIL SINGH VS KARAMJIT SINGH - 2020 7 Supreme 527
For instance:- Printouts alone cannot be primary evidence. JAGMAIL SINGH VS KARAMJIT SINGH - 2020 7 Supreme 527- Screenshots of chats are inadmissible sans certification, as seen in multiple rulings. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
This applies across cases: matrimonial disputes where chat logs allege cruelty, or criminal probes involving shared images. Without certification, such evidence is rejected. JAGMAIL SINGH VS KARAMJIT SINGH - 2020 7 Supreme 527
The landmark Arjun Panditrao judgment para 61 reiterated:
The certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory condition for the admissibility of electronic evidence. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
It further noted that production of the original electronic record or a certificate is essential; mere printouts or screenshots without proper certification are insufficient. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
This builds on earlier cases, ensuring electronic evidence meets documentary standards. Courts consistently hold: failure to produce the certificate renders it inadmissible. JAGMAIL SINGH VS KARAMJIT SINGH - 2020 7 Supreme 527
WhatsApp evidence surfaces in diverse scenarios, but admissibility hinges on compliance. In a sessions trial under IPC Sections 376 and 506, the court quashed an order allowing a prosecutrix (witness) to submit additional documents, stressing only the prosecution can introduce them—not witnesses independently. This underscores procedural rigor for digital evidence like chats. Sunil VS State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(MP) 573
In a sedition-related case involving a nude photo with a national flag shared via WhatsApp, the group admin's liability was probed, but at charge-framing, the court noted mobile forensics (e.g., deleted chats) as potential defenses later, not for dismissal. Prima facie, chats were considered with scientific backing. Juned VS State of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer - 2023 Supreme(MP) 687
Family courts echo this: In a Hindu Marriage Act divorce appeal alleging cruelty, WhatsApp chats and photos were marked irrelevant or inadmissible without originals or certificates (e.g., Original not available No certificate from WhatsApp regarding its genuine-ness). Mere copies failed. Kunal Mehra, son of Late Pradeep Kumar Mehra VS Manisha Mehra - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 796
Criminal appeals under UA(P) Act highlighted deleted WhatsApp conversations proved via scientific evidence, showing tampering risks without certification. Adarsh Singh Rajawat Adarsh Golu VS State of A. P. - 2022 Supreme(AP) 119
Even in defamation via WhatsApp under IT Act Section 67, courts quashed proceedings where chats lacked proper proof, noting: A careful perusal of the aforesaid WhatsApp message would further show... ingredients of offence under Section 67 of the IT Act are not at all attracted. Rajendra Agrawal, S/o Motilal Agrawal VS State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer of Police StationSupela, District Durg (C. G. ) - 2021 Supreme(Chh) 18
These cases illustrate: while WhatsApp is ubiquitous, courts scrutinize for Section 65-B compliance, often rejecting uncertified forwards.
There are limited carve-outs:- Original device produced: If the mobile phone or original record is presented in court and authenticity established (e.g., via forensic exam), no certificate is required. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405- Practical scenarios like video conferencing for witnesses abroad via WhatsApp were allowed for accessibility, but statements still needed verification. Kulvir Ram @ Mati VS State of Punjab - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1240
In voluminous chat cases, courts permit relevant cross-examination but reject blanket restrictions, tying back to Evidence Act relevancy. Pulkit Arya VS State of Uttarakhand - 2024 Supreme(UK) 439
To leverage WhatsApp as evidence:- Secure a valid Section 65-B(4) certificate promptly from the device owner or custodian.- Preserve originals; avoid relying on forwards or screenshots.- In disputes, produce the device for forensic analysis.- Courts should verify certificates and chain of custody.
Without these, expect rejection. Parties must anticipate evidentiary hurdles early.
WhatsApp forwards without originals or Section 65-B certificates are generally inadmissible, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405 This protects against tampering while upholding justice. Key takeaways:- Mandatory certificate for secondary electronic evidence. JAGMAIL SINGH VS KARAMJIT SINGH - 2020 7 Supreme 527ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405- Produce originals where possible.- Consult forensic experts for authenticity.
This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
References:1. JAGMAIL SINGH VS KARAMJIT SINGH - 2020 7 Supreme 527 – Secondary evidence like WhatsApp printouts inadmissible without certificate.2. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405 – Supreme Court's mandate on Section 65-B(4).
#WhatsAppEvidence, #Section65B, #IndianEvidenceAct
chats and oral conversation transcript in English language as electronic evidence and also other documents i.e., letters along with certified translations and original postal receipts as secondary evidence. ... Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. ... The secondary evidence must be authenticated by founda....
the Evidence Act as the original mobile phone wherein the aforesaid whatsapp messages were received is in possession of the complainant. ... Thereafter, the respondent filed another application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to prove copies of the aforesaid screen shots of the whatsapp messages sent by the husband of the petitioner to the complainant by leading secondary evidence supported by certificate issued under Section 65-B of ... It is further submitted that resultantly, t....
Since the original record was also requisitioned in the present case, the same may be remitted back to the trial Court without any delay, and the learned Judge of the trial Court is requested to proceed with the case, in accordance with law. 20. ... At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. ... Yet, it cannot come to the aid of the witness in the present case, who has sought permission of the Sessions Court to ....
It is further contended that as per WhatsApp rules, when a person avails the services of WhatsApp, he is bound to accept the terms and conditions regarding use of WhatsApp. If a person uses it otherwise than the terms prescribed, he cannot take protection that he is using it lawfully. ... For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. ... The petitioner was not the #....
when the original document itself is produced. ... Evidence Act . ... A paper print out of the alleged Whatsapp message has been marked as Ex.B1. The said paper print out has not been certified as contemplated under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act . ... The plaintiff contends that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendants had not come forward to execute the sale deed. ... In such circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff, having cancelled the sale....
It would be appropriate to refer to rule 8.15, which reads as follows: “8.15 Where a Required Person is not capable to reaching the Court Room or the Remote Point due to sickness or physical infirmity, or presence of the required person cannot be secured without undue delay ... Given the fact that prosecution has been launched against the petitioner, in such a situation, even the petitioner accused cannot be burdened with such cost. ... He further submits that rules cannot be by-passed and have to be followed in letter ....
the said issue of discarding the evidence to prove the adultery, as available as per the appellant in the WhatsApp and Pen-drive, which has correctly been rejected by holding that WhatsApp message cannot be said to substantiate the ground of adultery. ... Moreover, the said WhatsApp message cannot be said to be have the evidentiary value in absence of compliance of the provision of Section 65 B of the EVIDENCE ACT . 50. ... The learned Family Judge has discarded the ....
Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist would submit that evidence is recorded as per the provisions of the Act. There cannot be any general blanket order restricting defence from asking questions before the cross-examination begins. ... Before PW 23 could be examined, an application was moved on behalf of the Special Public Prosecution with the following request:- “It is therefore, more respectfully prayed that as the whatsapp chat has voluminous data and it is evident according to the INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ... 187....
further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. ... further proof of production of the original, as evidence of the contents of the original or of any facts stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. ... The courts cannot go into the details of the evidence or appreciate the #HL_STA....
The document cannot be admitted without the maker being called if the authenticity of the document is disputed. The production of a s 90A(2) certificate will not do. This is because the said document is not 'a document produced by a computer' under s 90A(1). ... As such, I have asked Rosa to forward to me the proof that the products sold by them were genuine." ... (b) A certificate given under subsection (2) shall be admissible in evidence as prima facie proof of all matters stated in it without proof ....
Original not available No certificate from WhatsApp regarding its genuine-ness. X/9 Copy of gifts given by Kunal to his two irrelevant sons. Irrelevant X/10 Photograph of the Respondent -wife with Appellant-husband and his family members showing affectionate relation, few months after marriage. Admitted and undisputed case. X/8 Copy of WhatsApp Chat between appellant and Respondent after the 13.11.2020.
There is no scope for the petitioner to interfere with any material now gathered. Larger public interest demands that the petitioner should not be continued under suspension. The respondents are required to respond to the matter in an un-passionate manner. What could be gathered as a misconduct is already there on his WhatsApp group.
He had also sent the extracts of the whatsapp message and deleted whatsapp message but nothing incriminating was found. The I.O. has further deposed that on 15.12.2017 the seized mobile phones were sent to DFS, Kahilipara for examination. During investigation he had collected specimen handwriting and signature of accused Gobind Singhal in presence of ACP, Jalukbari Division viz., Sri Pranjit Duwarah.
The scientific evidence would show that the Appellant deleted WhatsApp conversation between him and Harish Rajput, as per latter’s directions. Further, on 23.12.2019, Ashi Rajput shared the screenshot of news regarding arrest of Navy personnel in espionage case. Further, Navy personnel were in constant touch with foreign agents/spies, who have social media accounts and clandestinely transferred sensitive information of Indian Navy.
A careful perusal of the aforesaid WhatsApp message would further show that the aforesaid publication or transmission of WhatsApp message by the co-accused is alleged to be sent on behalf of the petitioner. Even according to the complainant, it is only defamatory and as such, the ingredients of offence under Section 67 of the IT Act are not at all attracted. A careful perusal of the aforesaid WhatsApp message would show that the complainant company is involved in the illegal act and by that the complainant company is making huge money which is said to be defamatory also by ....
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
