Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. In fine, we approve the method adopted by the Police in sending the Digital Video Recording (MO-2) itself to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory for the computer experts to view the recordings and give a report of the events in the nature of Ex.P-10. Similarly, the morphological study of the photographs of the accused that has been obtained by the Police from two sources, by Pushparani (PW-24), Scientific Officer, and her Report (Ex.P-12) stands accepted by us to infer that the assailant seen in the CCTV footage is the accused. It is axiomatic that the opinion of an expert, which is relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when accepted by the Court graduates into the opinion of the Court. The Central Government has not yet issued notification under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 on account of which Section 45A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 remains mute. Therefore, the methods evolved by Kala (PW-23) and Pushparani (PW-24), Scientific Officers of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department to analyze and give their opinions on the electronic data, are correct and cannot be faulted.

The above decision does not in any way enhance the case of the defence inasmuch as, in the last line, the Supreme Court has stated that, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act. In this case, DVR (MO-2) which contains the information is before the Court. There may be occasions when in large establishments like Railways, Airports where large number of cameras are installed and the information is stored digitally in huge servers, it may not be possible for the Police to seize the server and send them either to the Forensic Science Department or produce them before the Court. Only to obviate this difficulty and to satisfactorily meet the objections relating to admissibility of secondary evidence in electronic form, the Parliament thought it fit to provide a certification under Section 65B. Even if the certification is not obtained at the time of collection of evidence, yet, at the time of trial, evidence aliunde can be given through the person who was in charge of the Server, in terms of Section 65B of the Act, as held by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Kundan Singh v. State (MANU/DE/3674/2015). The Police can also requisition the services of Computer Experts and Experts from the Forensic Sciences Department to retrieve data from a huge server through USB drive or CD drive or any other gadget for the purpose of investigation and production of the same before the Court without disturbing the integrity of the original source. If we fail to provide this facility to the Police, the Criminal Justice Delivery System will become a lame duck.