Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

38 apeal 376.16.odt

53. These cumulative lapses assume even greater significance in view of the Criminal Manual issued by the Bombay HC 1978, Rule 24, i.e. Rules for the production, Use and Recording of the Tape-Record Evidence in Courts. This mandates that in cases involving electronic evidence, such as tape- recorded or digital recordings, the Investigating Officer must ensure proper sealing, safe custody, accurate documentation, and timely forwarding of such articles to the Court. Rule 24 further requires that all electronic devices and storage media be produced in their original form, accompanied by a clear panchnama, and, where applicable, certification of correctness, to enable the Court to determine authenticity and admissibility. The prosecution's failure to comply with this mandatory procedural safeguard constitutes a serious infraction that vitiates the credibility of the electronic evidence relied upon. The absence of a 65B certificate renders the alleged transcripts wholly inadmissible in evidence. These omissions are not minor technical defects but constitute fatal procedural lapses which directly undermine the substratum of the prosecution's case. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in the case of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku V. State Of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461 that such electronic evidence cannot be relied upon in law unless compliance with Section of 65B of the Evidence Act. Relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced below-