Admissibility And Perplexity Of Digital Evidence: An Overview

Prashant Bhadu

doi:10.53724/lrd/v5n4.03

Authors

Prashant Bhadu Affiliation: (Assistant Prof.)Andaman Law College Port–Blair–744101 Email Address: prashant.bhadu@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4594-4537

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53724/lrd/v5n4.03

Keywords:

Information Technology, Digital Evidence, Computer System, IT ACT

Abstract

The research paper has been started with the concept and meaning of digital evidence. In addition, the principles of the Evidence Act have been explained with amendments with respect to digital evidence. Several judgments of the Supreme Court of India have been cited in the context of admissibility and perplexity of digital evidence. Lastly, the safeguards and procedures to be followed by the Indian judiciary in handling digital/electronic evidence are also mentioned in the research paper.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Soni Lavin Valecha, Sonika Bhardwaj [March, 2020], Admissibility of Electronic Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, International Journal of Management and Humanities, Vol. 4, Issue 7, at p. 1.

Admissibility of Digital Evidence in India was re–defined by Tejas Karia, Akhil Anand and Bahaar Dhawan of the Indian Supreme Court.

Available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/electronic-evidence-digitalcyber-law-india-adv-prashantmali, last accessed on 24th June, 2021.

Dholam Swaroopa, Electronic Evidence and its Challenges, available at: http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.129(As%20Per%20Workshop%20List%20title%20no129%20pdf).pdf last accessed on 24th June, 2021.

Ibid.

Burkhard Schafer and Stephen Mason, Characteristics of Electronic Evidence in Digital Format, in Electronic Evidence, edited by Stephen Mason, LexisNexis, 2013, at pp. 17–25.

Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1987 SC 1454.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Indian Evidence Act has been amended by virtue of Section 92 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Anything said outside the court by a person absent from the hearing, but presented as evidence by a third person during the hearing. The law excludes evidence from hearsay because it is difficult or impossible to determine its truth and accuracy, which is usually achieved through cross–examination. Since the person who made the statement and the person to whom it was said cannot be cross–examined, the account of a third person is excluded. There are some exceptions to this rule which do not need to be explained here.

Anvar v. Basheer and the New [Old] Law of Electronic Evidence: The Centre for Internet and Society, available at http://cisindia.org/internetgovernance/blog/anvarvbasheernewoldlawofelectronicevidence last accessed on 5th March, 2021.

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Manisha T. Karia and Tejas D. Karia [2012], India [Chapter 13] in Stephen Mason, [ed], Electronic Evidence, [3rd edn.], Lexis Nexis Butterworths, at pp. 34–40.

Anvar P.K. v. P.K. Basheer and Ors [2014] 10 SCC 473.

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

E–evidence in India by Prashanti, available at www.legalservicesindia.com, last accessed on 5th March, 2021.

AIR 1987 SC 1454.

Section 65–A of the Indian evidence Act, 1872: Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record.

Section 65–B provides for “Admissibility of Electronic Records”.

Section 65–B[2] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lists the technological conditions upon which a duplicate copy [including a print–out] of an original electronic record may be used.

Section 65-B [4] of the Evidence Act lists additional non–technical qualification conditions for establishing the authenticity of digital evidence. This provision requires the production of a certificate by a senior person who was responsible for the computer on which the electronic record was created, or stored. The certificate must uniquely identify the original electronic record, describe the method of its manufacture, describe the equipment that made it, and certify compliance with the technical conditions of Sub–section [2] of Section 65–B should do.

[1984] SCR 196.

[1986] 3 SCR 866.

AIR 1974 SC 989: [1974] Cri.LJ 784.

[1999] 4 SCC 567.

[2003] DLT 385: [2003] 71 DRJ 17.

State v. Navjyot Sandhu AIR 2005 SC 3820.

Anvar v. Basheer and the New [Old] Law of Electronic Evidence: The Centre for Internet and Society available at, http://cisindia.org/internetgovernance/ blog/anvarvbasheernewoldlawofelectronicevidence, last accessed on 5th March, 2021.

[2011] 7 SCC 69.

WP [Civil] No. 398 of 2010.

[2008] 105 DRJ 721.

. WP [Civil] No. 398 of 2010 before the Indian Supreme Court.

. AIR 2015 SC 180.

. 241 FRD 534 [D. Md. 2007].

. Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company 241 FRD 534 [D. Md. 2007].

. MANU/ SC/0040/2015.

. MANU/DE/0376/2015.