AI Overview...

Section 65B Certificate: Does It Need to Be Made by the Victim?

In today's digital age, electronic evidence like call records, CDs, emails, and CCTV footage plays a pivotal role in legal proceedings. However, its admissibility hinges on strict compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A common query arises: Section 65b Certificate Not Made by Victim – does the certificate under Section 65B(4) need to be issued by the victim or complainant? The short answer is no. This certificate is typically provided by the custodian of the device or system generating the record, not the victim. Let's break this down based on judicial precedents and statutory provisions.

Understanding Section 65B: The Basics

Section 65B governs the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. It deems such records (e.g., printouts from computers or servers) as documents, provided certain conditions are met. Key among them is Section 65B(4), which mandates a certificate signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the device's operation or management.

• The certificate must confirm that the device was used regularly, operated properly, and the record was produced during normal use.


• Importantly, it is not issued by the victim. The victim may provide context or identify the record, but the certification comes from the technical custodian, like a telecom official for call data records (CDRs) or IT administrator for emails. State (N. C. T. Of Delhi) VS Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - 2005 5 Supreme 414

This distinction prevents laypersons (like victims) from certifying complex technical processes they aren't qualified for.

Who Issues the Certificate?

Courts have consistently held that the certificate must be from:
- A person in a responsible official position regarding the computer/system.
- For CDRs, it's often the nodal officer of the telecom company.
- In cases of server-stored data (e.g., huge servers not easily movable), secondary evidence via certified printouts is allowed under Sections 63 and 65, even without a perfect 65B(4) certificate if mechanical processes ensure accuracy. State (N. C. T. Of Delhi) VS Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - 2005 5 Supreme 414

Printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service providing Company can be led into evidence... Irrespective of the compliance of the requirements of Section 65B... there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions... Sections 63 & 65. State (N. C. T. Of Delhi) VS Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - 2005 5 Supreme 414

Judicial Interpretations: Victim's Role is Limited

Indian courts have clarified in landmark cases that the victim does not issue the Section 65B certificate. Here's how:

1. Parliament Attack Case (2005)

In the high-profile Mohd. Afzal vs. State case involving the Parliament attack, the Supreme Court addressed electronic records like call details. It ruled that non-filing of the 65B(4) certificate does not bar secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 if originals are immovable (e.g., servers). The certificate is from the service provider, not victims or investigators. State (N. C. T. Of Delhi) VS Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - 2005 5 Supreme 414

The court emphasized: It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub-Section (4) of Section 65B is not filed... but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence. State (N. C. T. Of Delhi) VS Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - 2005 5 Supreme 414

2. Nirbhaya Case and Similar Rulings

In the Nirbhaya gang-rape case (Mukesh & Anr. vs. State), electronic evidence like CCTV and DNA reports was admitted with proper certification from forensic experts or custodians, not victims. Minor procedural lapses were overlooked if overall compliance was met. Mukesh VS State for NCT of Delhi - 2017 3 Supreme 385

Electronic record satisfying conditions u/s 65-B – Admissible in proceeding. Mukesh VS State for NCT of Delhi - 2017 3 Supreme 385

3. Curable Defect: Flexibility in Practice

Recent judgments treat missing or defective 65B certificates as curable defects. Courts can summon the issuer under Section 91 CrPC or allow production later via Section 311 CrPC, without prejudice to the accused.

In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao (2020), the Supreme Court held: Though Section 65B(4) is mandatory, yet... party asking for such certificate has done all that he can possibly do to obtain requisite certificate. Courts may direct issuance if refused. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405

Similarly, in serial bomb blasts cases, recall of witnesses for 65B certificates was permitted even years later, as it's a procedural requirement, not substantive. State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351

4. When No Certificate is Needed

• Primary evidence: Original electronic records (e.g., original CD/DVD) may not strictly need 65B if produced directly. Harpal Singh @ Chhota VS State of Punjab - 2016 8 Supreme 270


• Oral proof barred if 65B unmet: Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65-B... are not complied with. Vivek Kumar @ Vivek @ Modi @ Ram Vivek Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 129

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to produce a 65B certificate can render evidence inadmissible, weakening the case:
- CDRs/CDs excluded if uncertified. Harpal Singh @ Chhota VS State of Punjab - 2016 8 Supreme 270
- In murder trials, uncertified pen drives/CDs dismissed. Ravi Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 825

However, it's not fatal if:
- Secondary evidence complies via Sections 63/65.
- Court exercises discretion for justice (e.g., resummoning witnesses). State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351

Practical Tips for Litigants

• Prosecution/Complainants: Obtain certificates from telecoms, IT heads early. Apply to court if refused.


• Defense: Challenge admissibility promptly; object if victim-attempted certification.


• Victims: Your role is identification/testimony, not technical certification.

| Scenario | Certificate Required? | Issuer |
|----------|----------------------|--------|
| CDRs from telecom | Yes | Nodal Officer State (N. C. T. Of Delhi) VS Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - 2005 5 Supreme 414 |
| CCTV footage | Yes | Device custodian |
| Emails/SMS | Yes | Server admin |
| Victim-provided phone data | Yes, from extractor | Forensic expert |

Key Takeaways

• Section 65B certificate is NOT made by the victim; it's a technical document from the device custodian.


• Non-compliance is curable in most cases, prioritizing justice.


• Always pair with chain of custody proof.


• Courts focus on totality of evidence, not isolated lapses.

In summary, if facing Section 65b Certificate Not Made by Victim, rest assured – the law doesn't require it. Focus on getting it from the right source. Legal outcomes vary by facts, so consult a lawyer for case-specific guidance.

Disclaimer: This post provides general information based on judicial precedents. It is not legal advice. Laws and interpretations evolve; seek professional counsel for your situation. Cases cited: State (N. C. T. Of Delhi) VS Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - 2005 5 Supreme 414, Mukesh VS State for NCT of Delhi - 2017 3 Supreme 385, ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405, Harpal Singh @ Chhota VS State of Punjab - 2016 8 Supreme 270, State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351, Vivek Kumar @ Vivek @ Modi @ Ram Vivek Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 129, Ravi Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 825.