Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

a) Ex. PW-5/A (colly. running into 25 pages): Reply to notice, CAF, CDR and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, bearing witness's signatures and stamp at point A on each page (objected to by defense counsel on basis of admissibility) 8.3. Cross-Examination The witness testified he has been working in Bharti Airtel Ltd. as Nodal Officer since 2007. When shown the certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act filed by him, he acknowledged he had not mentioned details and description of the device from which documents being Ex. PW-5/A originated/were reproduced. The document CAF of mobile number 7044298943 is a photocopy, though it is attested and signed by him. The 5 Designation: Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., 224, Okhla, Phase-3, New Delhi, Date of Examination: 03.04.2025.

a) Ex.PW8/A: Witness's endorsement on complaint bearing his signatures at point A 8 Designation: Sub-Inspector No. 3531D, PS New Delhi Zone, PCR, Date of Examination: 14.05.2025 State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act

b) Ex.PW1/K: FIR bearing witness's signatures at point B (already exhibited)

c) Ex.PW8/B: Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding FIR bearing witness's signatures at point A Cross-Examination 11.3. The witness testified that Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is regarding computerized copy of FIR as per Indian Evidence Act. In the Certificate under Section 65B exhibited as Ex.PW8/B, details and description of electronic device being model, make, etc. have not been mentioned. He denied deposing falsely at the IO's behest and that no FIR was registered by him.

b) Absence of Section 65B Certificate: The settled position of law, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v.

State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act P.K. Basheer [2014] 11 S.C.R 399 and consistently reiterated in subsequent judgments, including Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (supra), is that a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory and a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records in evidence. Section 65B forms a complete code when it comes to admissibility of information contained in electronic records, and an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied, including production of a written certificate under Section 65B(4). In the present case, PW1 Sushanta Kumar Mandal has admittedly relied upon electronic evidence in the form of emails allegedly received from the accused. During his examination-in-chief recorded on 28.08.2024, PW1 deposed: "I handed over copy of my caste certificate, photocopies of emails, photocopies of screen shots, photocopy of Aadhar Card of the accused and photocopy of the voter ID of the accused and the same was taken into possession by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C signed by me at point A." The witness further stated: "The email dated 22.04.2020 was handed over by me to the IO and the same is Ex.PWI/E signed by me at point A. The copy of the email dated 29.04.2020 is Ex.PW1/F signed by me at point A." These averments make it crystal clear that what was handed over to the IO were mere photocopies of emails and photocopies of screenshots, which constitute secondary evidence of electronic records. Critically, there is no material on record to demonstrate that PW1 has State vs. Somkanya Chandreyee Das PS Vasant Kunj North Under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act furnished any certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of these electronic documents. The certificate under Section 65B(4) is required to identify the electronic record containing the statement, describe the manner in which it was produced, and give particulars of the device involved in the production of the electronic record. The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. The entire rationale behind this requirement is to ensure the integrity of the source and authenticity of the electronic data, so that the Court may place reliance on it, particularly since electronic data is prone to tampering and alteration.

g) In these circumstances, the electronic evidence lacks authenticity, reliability and credibility, and the prosecution case based solely on such inadmissible evidence deserves to be rejected. 26.3. Electronic evidence produced by PW-7/ Ms. Usha Vinod Kumar

a) The prosecution heavily relied upon the deposition of PW7 to prove electronic evidence, as she had provided the printout of the emails to the IO and had also provided certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act. She also exhibited these documents during her testimony, though the exhibition of the certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act was specifically objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the accused during the examination in chief of this witness.