Categories: Other Courts

ORAL EVIDENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY SUFFICE; A CERTIFICATE U/SEC 65B (4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IS MANDATARY FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court in the Case Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs State of Punjab observed that the oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice, to produce electronic evidence the certificate under Section 65B (4) of Evidence Act is mandatory.

The argument raised by the respondents were that the call details produced relating to the phone used by A1 and A2 have established that they shared an intimate relationship and that this relationship became the root cause of offence is also unworthy of acceptance. Additionally, it was observed by the bench A2 does not conclusively establish the guilt of A2 in committing the murder of the deceased children the arrest of the accused, the recovery of material objects and the call details produced, do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence and do not establish the fact that A2 committed the murder of the children of PW5 as per the last seen theory, the court observed while holding the circumstantial evidence against the present appellant.

In the above-mentioned case accused approached the Apex court challenging the judgment of High Court, an appeal was filed by two accused and the High Court acquitted them and the conviction of one accused was upheld and though the death sentence was set aside.

Thereafter the Trial Court convicted three accused in a kidnap cum murder case and sentenced them to death. under section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, whether the call records produced by the prosecution would be admissible or not was an issue raised before the Apex Court.

solely on such circumstantial evidence, it is impossible the bench further noted that that the conviction of the appellant-accused is marred with inconsistencies and contradictions by referring to the evidence on record.

the bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and the justice Vineet Saran observed he the Oral evidence in the place of such certificate, as is the case in the present matter, cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B (4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. in accordance with the statute and should have complied with the certification requirement, for it to be admissible in the court of law, electronic evidence should have been proposed before the High Court. The bench also referred to the judgement in the case Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.

The post ORAL EVIDENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY SUFFICE; A CERTIFICATE U/SEC 65B (4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IS MANDATARY FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: SUPREME COURT appeared first on The Daily Guardian.

- -

Recent Posts

SC Seeks Email On Ghaziabad ‘Dharam Sansad’ Plea

The Supreme Court on Monday directed a group of former bureaucrats and social activists to…

31 minutes ago

Atul Subhash Case: Wife, Relatives File Anticipatory Bail Pleas In Allahabad HC

Engineer Atul Subhash’s estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, along with her family members, has filed anticipatory…

2 days ago

Koregaon Bhima Battle Anniversary Planning: BHC Allows Maharashtra Govt To Enter ‘Jay Stambh’ Plot

The Bombay High Court has recently granted the Maharashtra government permission to access the disputed…

2 days ago

Mahakumbh: NGT Extends Deadline For Sewage Management Plan

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has recently granted the Uttar Pradesh government additional time to…

2 days ago

US Appeals Court Turns Down TikTok’s Request To Delay Ban

A federal appeals court has recently rejected TikTok’s request to delay a law requiring the…

2 days ago

Delhi Court Sends Naresh Balyan To Judicial Custody, Denies Police Further Remand

A Delhi court on Friday sent AAP’s Uttam Nagar MLA Naresh Balyan to judicial custody…

2 days ago