Jharkhand High Court Sets New Precedent on Admissibility of Electronic Evidence under Section 65B

Introduction

The case of Shoaib Akhtar v. The State of Jharkhand marks a significant turning point in the interpretation and application of electronic evidence within the Indian legal framework. This case involves several appellants who were convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, on charges related to assault and causing death within a central jail premises. The convictions were primarily based on CCTV footage, which the appellants contested on the grounds of improper authentication under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Jharkhand High Court’s decision to overturn these convictions underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in the use of electronic evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

On April 5, 2023, the Jharkhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 922 of 2022 and related appeals. The appellants, including Shoaib Akhtar and others, challenged their convictions and sentences, which included death penalties and rigorous imprisonment for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court scrutinized the admissibility of the electronic evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the CCTV footage, and found significant procedural lapses in its authentication. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, directing the immediate release of the appellants.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronic records. A pivotal case cited was Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others (2020) 7 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 65B(4) certificates for electronic evidence to be admissible. The Anvar P.V. and Shafhi Mohammad cases were also referenced to underline the necessity of proper certification and the role of "responsible officials" in authenticating electronic records.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal contention revolved around the validity of the authentication certificate for the CCTV footage presented as evidence. Under Section 65B(4), the certificate must be signed by a person occupying a "responsible official position" related to the operation or management of the device that produced the electronic record. In this case, the certificate was signed by technicians who did not hold such responsible positions, thereby failing to meet the statutory requirements.

Furthermore, the court highlighted discrepancies in the operational status of the CCTV cameras during the incident period, casting doubt on the authenticity of the footage. The High Court referenced that the CCTV systems were not functioning correctly from June 25, 2019, to July 4, 2019, the timeframe during which the alleged incident occurred. This lack of operational assurance, combined with the improperly authenticated certificate, rendered the electronic evidence unreliable.

Impact

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to the judiciary and law enforcement agencies about the stringent requirements for admitting electronic evidence. It reinforces the necessity of complying with Section 65B to ensure that electronic records are admissible and reliable. Future cases will likely see enhanced scrutiny of electronic evidence, particularly the authentication process, fostering greater accountability in the handling and presentation of digital records.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 65B deals with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in court. It mandates that any electronic record (like emails, digital documents, CCTV footage) must be accompanied by a certificate confirming its authenticity. This certificate must be provided by a qualified person who is in a responsible position related to the device or system that produced the record.

Authentication Certificate

An authentication certificate is a document that verifies the origin and integrity of electronic evidence. Under Section 65B(4), this certificate must detail how the electronic record was produced and include the signature of a responsible official to attest its validity. Without this certificate, electronic evidence is considered secondary and generally inadmissible unless the original is produced.

Conclusion

The Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Shoaib Akhtar v. The State of Jharkhand underscores the imperative for rigorous adherence to legal standards governing electronic evidence. By invalidating the convictions based on improperly authenticated CCTV footage, the court has highlighted the pivotal role of procedural correctness in ensuring justice. This judgment not only impacts the immediate parties involved but also sets a precedent that will influence the handling of electronic evidence in future legal proceedings across India. Ensuring that electronic records are authenticated correctly is essential for upholding the integrity of the judicial process and protecting the rights of the accused.