S.65B Evidence Act | AP High Court Calls For Sensitisation Of Investigating Officers Qua Legal Parameters For Admission Of Electronic Evidence

Considering the laches in prosecution evidence in a murder trial, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Head of Police Department in the State to sensitize the Investigating Officers on the importance of legal parameters to be complied with as a pre-requisite for admission of electronic evidence in Courts.

"It appears that investigation Officer was ignorant of the legal parameters required for admissibility and proving electronic evidence in the Court. If the Investigation officers are sensitized on the importance of legal parameters to be complied with as a condition precedent for admission and proving of electronic records produced before the Court, it may strengthen the Criminal Justice System. Therefore, we hope and trust that the Head of Police Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh will take steps in that direction," observed a division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice B.V.L.N Chakravarthi.

The bench was seized of a criminal appeal filed by two accused who were convicted of robbing a man and then setting him ablaze to murder him and destroying evidence.

The prosecution had relied upon the CCTV footage of the ATM and call record data to prove that the two accused had robbed the deceased and withdrawn money from his card at an ATM and the call data placed the accused at the scene of the crime.

The counsel on behalf of the accused contended that since the prosecution had failed to submit a certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act (that is mandatory to prove the legitimacy of any electronic evidence), the electronic evidence could not be relied upon.

Although the telephone authorities deposed regarding the legitimacy of the call records and the constable at the ATM confirmed the presences of the accused, the Court relying upon Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal reiterated that no oral evidence can take the place of the pre-requisite certificate under section 65B and was compelled to disbelieve that portion of the evidence led by the prosecution.

However, the Court noted that the recovery of the burnt body was made by the Police based on the confession of the accused. The prosecution could also prove that right after murdering the deceased, his car was stolen by the accused and was found in their possession.

The deceased left the stolen car at a car automobile repair shop to change the number plate on the vehicle of the deceased. The owner of the shop identified the accused and corroborated the case with the prosecution.

Another point raised by the accused was that the mediator, in whose presence the material objects were seized had turned hostile in another case springing from the same recovery, and thus his evidence could not be relied upon.

The Court after due deliberation held "In those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the evidence of the Investigation Officer regarding recovery of material objects is convincing. His evidence cannot be brushed aside on the ground that P.W-10 did not support the prosecution version in SC 401/2013 on the file of learned III Additional Sessions Court, Kurnool at Nandyal...We are of the opinion that merely because seizure witness turned hostile in other case, it is not a ground to reject the evidence of Investigation Officer, when it is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and convincing, on material aspects."

Thus the conviction of the accused was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Case no.: CrlA 386 of 2016

Counsel for accused: D.Purnachandra Reddy

Counsel for State: S.Dushyanth Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order