2018 (1) TMI 1402 - SC - Indian Laws

Videography of the identification process - requirement of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act - admissible piece of evidence or not - whether videography of the scene of crime or scene of recovery during investigation should be necessary to inspire confidence in the evidence collected? Held that - The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked - the requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) is not always mandatory. The admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of electronic evidence and requirement of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act.
2. Use of videography in crime scene investigation and admissibility of such evidence.

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence:
In the judgment of SLP (Crl.) NO. 9431 of 2011, the issue of the admissibility of electronic evidence and the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act was discussed. The court considered the applicability of conditions under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the importance of proving the accuracy and authenticity of electronic evidence. Reference was made to various judgments, including the case of Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh, which highlighted the admissibility of electronic evidence subject to safeguards ensuring its authenticity. The court stressed the need for stringent standards to prove the authenticity and accuracy of electronic evidence, acknowledging the relevance and importance of technological advancements in modern investigations.

Use of Videography in Crime Scene Investigation:
In SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017, the court deliberated on the necessity of videography during the investigation process to enhance the credibility of evidence collected. The discussion revolved around the benefits of videography, citing examples of its successful use in other countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. The court acknowledged the role of body-worn cameras as a deterrent against anti-social behavior and a tool for evidence collection. Reference was made to the Field Officers' Handbook by the Narcotics Control Bureau, emphasizing the importance of incorporating new technological devices for evidence collection. The court also highlighted the need for a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the use of videography in crime scenes, considering factors like scarcity of funds, data security, and evidence admissibility. The potential use of still-photography for forensic analysis and the establishment of secure portals for data storage were also discussed as part of the roadmap for implementing videography in crime scene investigations.

Conclusion:
The judgments provided clarity on the admissibility of electronic evidence and the use of videography in crime scene investigations. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring the authenticity and accuracy of electronic evidence while recognizing the benefits of technological advancements in evidence collection. Additionally, the discussions highlighted the need for a structured approach, including the formulation of SOPs and guidelines for the use of videography in crime scene investigations. The decisions underscored the evolving nature of evidence collection methods and the significance of adapting legal procedures to accommodate technological advancements in the justice system.