SHAFHI MOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

790                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 790                  [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A                            SHAFHI MOHAMMAD
                                         v.
                   THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2302 of 2017 )
B                              JANUARY 30, 2018
      [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
             Evidence Act, 1872: s.65B(4) – Videography of scene of crime
      or scene of recovery during investigation – Electronic evidence –
      Admissibility of – Procedural requirement – Held: If the electronic
C
      evidence is authentic and relevant the same certainly be admitted
      subject to the court being satisfied about its authenticity and
      procedure, for its admissibility may depend on fact situation such
      as whether the person producing such evidence is in a position to
      furnish certificate under s.65B(4) – A party who is not in possession
D     of device from which the document is produced cannot be required
      to produce certificate under s.65B(4) – The applicability of
      requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court
      wherever interest of justice so justifies – The applicability of
      procedural requirement under s.65B(4) of furnishing certificate is
      to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a
E
      person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in
      control of the said device and not of the opposite party – In a case
      where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in
      possession of a device, applicability of ss.63 and 65 cannot be
      held to be excluded – In such case, procedure under the said Sections
F     can certainly be invoked – If this is not so permitted, it will be denial
      of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/
      witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is
      kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under
      s.65B(4) which party producing cannot possibly secure – Thus,
      requirement of certificate under s.65B(4) is not always mandatory –
G
      Information Technology Act, 2000 – ss.2(t), 2(o).
            Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015)
            7 SCC 178 : [2015] 1 SCR 721; Ram Singh and Ors.
            v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) Supp SCC 611 : [1985] Suppl.
            SCR 399 – relied on
H
                                        790
     SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                           791
                   PRADESH

      Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010)              A
      4 SCC 329 : [2010] 2 SCR 396; Mohd. Ajmal Amir
      Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 : [2012]
      8 SCR 295; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
      (2005) 11 SCC 600 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79; Anvar
      P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473:[2014]
                                                                        B
      11 SCR 399 – referred to
      R. v. Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464; R. v. Robson
      (1972) 2 ALL ER 699 – referred to
                       Case Law Reference
[1985] Suppl. SCR 399             relied on             Para 3          C

[2010] 2 SCR 396                  referred to           Para 4
[2015] 1 SCR 721                  relied on             Para 5
[2012] 8 SCR 295                  referred to           Para 5
                                                                        D
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79            referred to           Para 5
[2014] 11 SCR 399                 referred to           Para 6
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 2302 of 2017
      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2014 of the High Court    E
of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2009.
WITH
      SLP (Crl.) NO. 9431 of 2011
      SLP (Crl). NO. 9631-9634 of 2012                                  F
      Jayant Bhushan, (AC), Ms. Meenakshi Arora .(A.C.), Yashank
Adhyaru, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Advs. Ketan Paul, Ms. Reeja Varghese,
Tushar Bhushan, Ms. Ananya Ghosh, Rituj Chopra (For Dr. Arun Mohan,
Sr. Adv. (AC), Ms. E. R. Sumathy, Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia,
Raj Kamal, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Ms. Sanskriti      G
Bhardwaj, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, B.V. Balaram Das, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Zoheb
Hussain, Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Kumar Shashank, B.V. Balaram Das,
Ajay Marwah, Ms. Seema Sharma, Varinder K. Sharma, Karan Thakur,
Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, Arun Singh, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,
                                                                        H
792            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Raj Kamal, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Bharat Bhushan,
      Advs. with them for the appearing parties.
            The following Order of the Court was delivered:
                                     ORDER
B           SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017 :
             1. One of the questions which arose in the course of consideration
      of the matter was whether videography of the scene of crime or scene
      of recovery during investigation should be necessary to inspire confidence
      in the evidence collected.
C            2. In Order dated 25th April, 2017 statement of Mr. A.N.S.
      Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General is recorded to the effect
      that videography will help the investigation and was being successfully
      used in other countries. He referred to the perceived benefits of “Body-
      Worn Cameras” in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
D     Body-worn cameras act as deterrent against anti-social behaviour and
      is also a tool to collect the evidence. It was submitted that new
      technological device for collection of evidence are order of the day. He
      also referred to the Field Officers’ Handbook by the Narcotics Control
      Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Reference
      was also made to Section 54-A of the Cr.P.C. providing for videography
E     of the identification process and proviso to Section 164(1) Cr.P.C.
      providing for audio video recording of confession or statement under the
      said provision.
             3. Thereafter, it was noted in the Order dated 12th October, 2017,
      that the matter was discussed by the Union Home Secretary with the
F     Chief Secretaries of the States in which a decision was taken to constitute
      a Committee of Experts (COE) to facilitate and prepare a road-map for
      use of videography in the crime scene and to propose a Standard
      Operating Procedure (SOP). However, an apprehension was expressed
      about its implementation on account of scarcity of funds, issues of
      securing and storage of data and admissibility of evidence. We noted the
G
      suggestion that still-photography may be useful on account of higher
      resolution for forensic analysis. Digital cameras can be placed on a mount
      on a tripod which may enable rotation and tilting. Secured portals may
      be established by which the Investigation Officer can e-mail
      photograph(s) taken at the crime scene. Digital Images can be retained
H     on State’s server as permanent record.
     SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                                793
                   PRADESH

SLP(Crl.)NO.9431 of 2011:                                                    A
       1. Since identical question arose for consideration in this special
leave petition as noted in Order dated 12th October, 2017, we have heard
learned amicus, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, senior advocate, Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, senior advocate, assisted by Ms. Ananya Ghosh, Advocate, on
the question of admissibility of electronic record. We have also heard       B
Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel, and Ms. Shirin Khajuria,
learned counsel, appearing for Union of India.
        2. An apprehension was expressed on the question of applicability
of conditions under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act to the effect
that if a statement was given in evidence, a certificate was required in     C
terms of the said provision from a person occupying a responsible position
in relation to operation of the relevant device or the management of
relevant activities. It was submitted that if the electronic evidence was
relevant and produced by a person who was not in custody of the device
from which the electronic document was generated, requirement of such
certificate could not be mandatory. It was submitted that Section 65B        D
of the Evidence Act was a procedural provision to prove relevant
admissible evidence and was intended to supplement the law on the
point by declaring that any information in an electronic record, covered
by the said provision, was to be deemed to be a document and admissible
in any proceedings without further proof of the original. This provision     E
could not be read in derogation of the existing law on admissibility of
electronic evidence.
        3. We have been taken through certain decisions which may be
referred to. In Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 (Supp)
SCC 611, a Three-Judge Bench considered the said issue. English              F
Judgments in R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 All ER 464, and R. v. Robson,
(1972) 2 ALL ER 699, and American Law as noted in American
Jurisprudence 2d (Vol.29) page 494, were cited with approval to the
effect that it will be wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to
be gained by new techniques and new devices, provided the accuracy
of the recording can be proved. Such evidence should always be regarded      G
with some caution and assessed in the light of all the circumstances of
each case. Electronic evidence was held to be admissible subject to
safeguards adopted by the Court about the authenticity of the same. In
the case of tape-recording it was observed that voice of the speaker
must be duly identified, accuracy of the statement was required to be        H
794            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     proved by the maker of the record, possibility of tampering was required
      to be ruled out. Reliability of the piece of evidence is certainly a matter
      to be determined in the facts and circumstances of a fact situation.
      However, threshold admissibility of an electronic evidence cannot be
      ruled out on any technicality if the same was relevant.
B            4. In Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4
      SCC 329, the same principle was reiterated. This Court observed that
      new techniques and devices are order of the day. Though such devices
      are susceptible to tampering, no exhaustive rule could be laid down by
      which the admission of such evidence may be judged. Standard of proof
      of its authenticity and accuracy has to be more stringent than other
C     documentary evidence.
            5. In Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7
      SCC 178, a Three-Judge Bench observed that advancement of
      information technology and scientific temper must pervade the method
      of investigation. Electronic evidence was relevant to establish facts.
D     Scientific and electronic evidence can be a great help to an investigating
      agency. Reference was made to the decisions of this Court in Mohd.
      Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 and State
      (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
             6. We may, however, also refer to judgment of this Court in Anvar
E     P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473, delivered by a
      Three-Judge Bench. In the said judgment in para 24 it was observed
      that electronic evidence by way of primary evidence was covered by
      Section 62 of the Evidence Act to which procedure of Section 65B of
      the Evidence Act was not admissible. However, for the secondary
F     evidence, procedure of Section 65B of the Evidence Act was required
      to be followed and a contrary view taken in Navjot Sandh (supra) that
      secondary evidence of electronic record could be covered under Sections
      63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, was not correct. There are, however,
      observations in para 14 to the effect that electronic record can be proved
      only as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
G
            7. Though in view of Three-Judge Bench judgments in Tomaso
      Bruno and Ram Singh (supra), it can be safely held that electronic
      evidence is admissible and provisions under Sections 65A and 65B of
      the Evidence Act are by way of a clarification and are procedural
      provisions. If the electronic evidence is authentic and relevant the same
H     can certainly be admitted subject to the Court being satisfied about its
     SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                                    795
                   PRADESH

authenticity and procedure for its admissibility may depend on fact              A
situation such as whether the person producing such evidence is in a
position to furnish certificate under Section 65B(h).
        8. Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be
held to be a complete code on the subject. In Anvar P.V. (supra), this
Court in para 24 clarified that primary evidence of electronic record            B
was not covered under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act.
Primary evidence is the document produced before Court and the
expression “document” is defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to
mean any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means
of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended
to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that              C
matter.
      9. The term “electronic record” is defined in Section 2(t) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 as follows:
        “Electronic record” means data, record or data generated, image          D
        or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro
        film or computer generated micro fiche.”
     10. Expression “data” is defined in Section 2(o) of the Information
Technology Act as follows.
        “Data” means a representation of information, knowledge, facts,          E
        concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been
        prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed,
        is being processed or has been processed in a computer system
        or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer
        printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards,              F
        punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the
        computer.”
        11. The applicability of procedural requirement under Section
65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only
when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a
                                                                                 G
position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device
and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is
produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of
Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded.
In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked.
If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is   H
796             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner
      of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in
      absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which
      party producing cannot possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate
      under Section 65B(h) is not always mandatory.
B             12.Accordingly, we clarify the legal position on the subject on the
      admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not
      in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such
      party cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of
      the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being
      procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so
C     justifies.
            13.To consider the remaining aspects, including finalisation of the
      road-map for use of the videography in the crime scene and the Standard
      Operating Procedure (SOP), we adjourn the matter to 13th February,
      2018.
D
             14. We place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable
      assistance rendered by learned amicus, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, senior
      advocate, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, senior advocate, who was assisted by
      Ms. Ananya Ghosh, Advocate, as well as by Mr. Yashank Adhyaru,
      learned senior counsel, and Ms. Shirin Khajuria, learned counsel,
E     appearing for Union of India.


      Devika Gujral                                            Clarification given.


F




G




H