The case of AJIT DAS ALIAS CHOTTA DAS v. The State of Jharkhand adjudicated by the Jharkhand High Court on April 5, 2023, marks a significant milestone in the interpretation and application of electronic evidence under Indian law. This comprehensive commentary delves into the background of the case, the High Court's analysis, and the broader implications for the admissibility of electronic records in judicial proceedings.

The appellants, including Ajit Das alias Chotta Das, were convicted by the trial court for multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), culminating in death sentences. The primary evidence against them was CCTV footage obtained from the Central Jail, which allegedly showed their involvement in violent incidents leading to the death of an inmate, Manoj Kumar Singh. The High Court, upon reviewing the case, found significant procedural lapses regarding the admissibility of the electronic evidence, particularly the lack of a properly authenticated Section 65B certificate. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and ordered the immediate release of the appellants.

Precedents Cited

The High Court referenced seminal cases that underscore the necessity of adhering to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic records to be admissible as evidence. Notably:

• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others (2020) 7 SCC 1: This case reinforces the imperative nature of Section 65B certificates for electronic evidence, emphasizing the court's stance on treating certificates signed by responsible officials as evidence of their authenticity.
• Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Others: The judgment from this case clarifies the conditions under which electronic records are admissible, particularly highlighting the mandatory requirement of Section 65B(4) certificates.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court's decision pivots on the stringent requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronic records. The court meticulously analyzed whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory provisions for electronic evidence:

• Authentication Certificate: The prosecution presented an authentication certificate purportedly issued by technicians from M/s. Vantage Integrated Security Solution Company. However, the court scrutinized the validity of this certificate, noting the absence of the company's seal and the lack of signature from a person in a "responsible official position" as mandated by Section 65B(4).
• Integrity of Electronic Evidence: The court identified discrepancies in the CCTV footage's integrity, including claims that the cameras were non-functional during the period in question and uncertainties surrounding the data's recovery from corrupted sources.
• Eyewitness Testimony: The reliance on CCTV footage was compounded by the absence of concrete eyewitness accounts directly linking the appellants to the violent acts, further weakening the prosecution's case.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's unwavering commitment to procedural rigor, especially concerning electronic evidence. The implications are multifaceted:

• Stricter Compliance: Courts across India are now reminded to enforce Section 65B diligently, ensuring that electronic evidence meets all legal prerequisites before being considered in trials.
• Evidence Reliability: The decision underscores the importance of reliable and authenticated evidence, deterring potential misuse or manipulation of electronic records in legal proceedings.
• Future Precedents: This ruling sets a benchmark for future cases involving electronic evidence, guiding both prosecution and defense counsels in the meticulous preparation and presentation of digital evidence.

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 65B deals with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in courts. For an electronic record to be admissible, it must satisfy certain conditions:

• The record must have been produced by a computer during the regular course of business.
• The computer must have been functioning properly during the relevant period.
• There must be a certificate verifying the authenticity of the electronic record, signed by a responsible official.

If these conditions are not met, the electronic evidence cannot be considered reliable and is thus inadmissible.

The Jharkhand High Court's decision in AJIT DAS ALIAS CHOTTA DAS v. The State of Jharkhand serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the integrity of the legal process. By emphasizing the stringent requirements of Section 65B, the court ensures that only credible and properly authenticated electronic evidence shapes judicial outcomes. This jurisprudence not only safeguards the rights of the accused against potential miscarriages of justice but also fortifies the legal system's reliability in the digital age.