Introduction

The case of Basudeo Mahto alias Basu Dev Mahato v. The State of Jharkhand adjudicated by the Jharkhand High Court on April 5, 2023, marks a significant precedent concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case revolves around the conviction of multiple appellants for offenses committed within the premises of the Central Jail, Ghaghidih, including assault and murder. The pivotal issue centers on the validity and reliability of CCTV footage used as evidence in the absence of credible eyewitness testimony.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellants, including Basudeo Mahto, were convicted based on evidence that heavily relied on CCTV footage purportedly capturing the violent incidents within the jail. The prosecution presented electronic records from CCTV cameras, authenticated by technicians from Vantage Integrated Security Solution Company, as the cornerstone of their case. However, the High Court scrutinized the adherence to procedures mandated by Section 65B of the Evidence Act, particularly questioning the legitimacy of the authentication certificates and the completeness of the CCTV data. The court found deficiencies in the prosecution's handling of electronic evidence and the lack of corroborative ocular evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and ordered the immediate release of the appellants.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others [(2020) 7 SCC 1], which emphasizes the necessity of adhering to Section 65B's requirements for electronic evidence admissibility. This precedent underscores that electronic records must be accompanied by a valid certificate as per Section 65B(4) to be considered reliable in court. Additionally, the judgment references Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer, further reinforcing the principle that electronic evidence cannot be presumed admissible without proper certification.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously evaluated whether the prosecution complied with the procedural requisites of Section 65B. The critical points of contention included:

• Authentication Certificate: The certificates provided by P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were merely technicians, lacked the endorsement of a responsible official as mandated by Section 65B(4). The absence of the company’s seal and letterhead further undermined their legitimacy.
• Integrity of CCTV Footage: The timeline indicated that the CCTV systems were non-operational during the incident period. The prosecution failed to establish that the corrupted data did not affect the footage related to the assault, casting doubt on the evidence's authenticity.
• Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The prosecution’s case was largely dependent on electronic records, with minimal support from credible eyewitnesses. The hostile testimonies and inconsistencies among witnesses further weakened the prosecution’s position.

The court concluded that without a properly authenticated electronic record and corroborative eyewitness testimony, the prosecution could not substantiate the involvement of the appellants in the violent incidents. The failure to adhere to Section 65B rendered the electronic evidence inadmissible, leading to the overturning of the convictions.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the use of electronic evidence in Indian courts. It reinforces the stringent compliance required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, ensuring that electronic records are authenticated by authorized personnel and free from procedural lapses. Future cases will likely witness heightened scrutiny of electronic evidence, particularly CCTV footage, necessitating robust certification processes and supplementary corroborative evidence to establish reliability and authenticity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 65B of the Evidence Act

Section 65B addresses the admissibility of electronic records in court. It stipulates that any electronic record must be accompanied by a certificate verifying its authenticity and integrity, ensuring it was produced by a reliable process. The certificate must be signed by a person in a responsible official capacity, attesting to the accuracy of the electronic record.

Authentication Certificate

An Authentication Certificate is a document that corroborates the genuineness of an electronic record. Under Section 65B(4), this certificate must be signed by an individual in a responsible official position related to the management or operation of the relevant device or system, ensuring the electronic record has not been tampered with.

Hostile Witness

A Hostile Witness is a testimony that either contradicts the prosecution’s case or is unfriendly to the party who called the witness. In this case, several witnesses declared as hostile undermined the prosecution’s narrative.

CCTV Footage as Evidence

Using CCTV Footage as evidence requires meticulous adherence to legal standards to ensure its admissibility. This includes proper authentication under Section 65B, ensuring the footage is unaltered, and securely obtained to maintain its integrity.

Conclusion

The judgment in Basudeo Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand underscores the paramount importance of procedural compliance in the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. By invalidating convictions based on improperly authenticated CCTV footage and lacking corroborative eyewitness testimony, the High Court reinforced the necessity for stringent adherence to legal protocols governing electronic records. This decision serves as a critical reminder for the prosecution to ensure comprehensive and compliant evidence presentation, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused and upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings.