Introduction

The case of Arup Kumar Bose A-14 v. The State of Jharkhand adjudicated by the Jharkhand High Court on April 5, 2023, serves as a pivotal landmark in the interpretation and application of electronic evidence within the Indian judicial system. This case revolves around a series of violent incidents within the Central Jail, Ghaghidih, leading to the death of inmate Manoj Kumar Singh. The appellants, including Arup Kumar Bose and others, were convicted and sentenced to death based on evidence primarily derived from CCTV footage. This comprehensive commentary delves into the intricacies of the case, the High Court's rationale for setting aside the convictions, and the broader implications for electronic evidence in Indian law.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellants were convicted for multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder (Section 302) and conspiracy (Section 120B), among others. The conviction heavily relied on CCTV footage as primary evidence demonstrating the involvement of the appellants in the violent incidents. However, the Jharkhand High Court critically examined the admissibility of this electronic evidence under the stringent provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court found deficiencies in the authentication process of the CCTV footage, notably the lack of proper certification by a "responsible official" as mandated by law. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and death sentences, directing the immediate release of the appellants.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The High Court referenced several key judicial pronouncements to substantiate its stance on the admissibility of electronic evidence:

• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others (2020) 7 SCC 1:
This Supreme Court decision emphasized the necessity of adhering strictly to Section 65B for electronic evidence to be deemed admissible. It underscored that secondary evidence of electronic records is permissible only when accompanied by a valid certification under Section 65B(4).
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others:
This landmark judgment reiterated that the failure to comply with the procedural mandates of Section 65B nullifies the admissibility of electronic evidence, regardless of its reliability or relevance.
• Taylor v. Taylor:
In this case, the court highlighted the principle that oral evidence cannot substitute the mandatory certification required for electronic records under Section 65B.

These precedents collectively fortified the High Court's determination to uphold the procedural sanctity required for electronic evidence, ensuring that its admission aligns with statutory provisions.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously dissected the prosecution's reliance on CCTV footage, identifying critical lapses in its authentication:

• Non-compliance with Section 65B: The CCTV footage was transferred to a pen drive and presented as evidence. However, the authentication certificate provided was signed by technicians (P.W.1 and P.W.2) rather than a "responsible official," as stipulated in Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act.
• Lack of Proper Certification: The certificate lacked the official seal and was not issued on the company or jail's letterhead, further questioning its authenticity.
• Coherence with Section 65B Requirements: The Court observed that the certificate did not adequately describe the manner of production, the device involved, or the data's integrity, thereby failing to satisfy the conditions under Section 65B(2).
• Reliability of CCTV Footage: The prosecution highlighted that the CCTV system experienced corruption between June 25 and July 4, 2019. This period coincided with the incident, casting doubt on the footage's completeness and reliability.

The High Court, therefore, concluded that the prosecution did not fulfill the essential criteria for electronic evidence's admissibility, rendering the convictions untenable.

Impact

This judgment bears significant implications for future legal proceedings involving electronic evidence in India:

• Strict Adherence to Section 65B: Courts will mandate rigorous compliance with Section 65B requirements for electronic evidence, emphasizing proper certification and authentication.
• Enhanced Scrutiny of Electronic Evidence: There will be heightened judicial scrutiny concerning the integrity and authenticity of electronic records, discouraging over-reliance on unverified digital evidence.
• Framework for Electronic Evidence Handling: Institutions will need to establish robust frameworks and protocols for managing, storing, and authenticating electronic evidence to ensure its admissibility in court.
• Protection of Accused's Rights: The judgment reinforces the protection of the accused's rights against convictions based solely on potentially unreliable or improperly authenticated electronic evidence.

Ultimately, this decision fortifies the judiciary's stance on safeguarding procedural justice, especially in cases heavily reliant on digital evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872

Section 65B governs the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in Indian courts. According to this section:

• Primary and Secondary Evidence: Electronic records can be primary evidence if certain conditions are met. Otherwise, they are considered secondary and require supplementary evidence for admissibility.
• Certification Requirement: To admit electronic records, a certified statement must be provided under Section 65B(4), attesting to the record's authenticity and the method of its generation.
• Responsible Official: The certificate should be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position related to the device's operation or the relevant activities' management.

In this case, the certificate was signed by technicians who did not hold a responsible official position, thus failing to meet the statutory requirements.

Authentication Certificate

An authentication certificate under Section 65B serves as a formal attestation ensuring that the electronic record is genuine and has not been tampered with. It must include:

• Identification of the electronic record
• Description of the production manner
• Details of the device involved
• Confirmation that the record was produced during regular operations

The absence of these elements in the certificate presented by the prosecution undermined the evidence's credibility.

Conclusion

The High Court's judgment in Arup Kumar Bose A-14 v. The State of Jharkhand underscores the paramount importance of adhering to statutory mandates governing electronic evidence. By meticulously evaluating the prosecution's failure to authenticate CCTV footage as per Section 65B, the Court not only safeguarded the appellants' rights but also reinforced the judiciary's commitment to procedural justice. This decision serves as a critical reminder to legal practitioners and institutions about the exigent need for robust mechanisms in managing and presenting electronic evidence. As digital evidence becomes increasingly prevalent, such judicial pronouncements will play a vital role in shaping the future of legal adjudication in India.