You may see this page https://kanoonirai.com/produce-electronic-document-evidence/
I am facing crpc 125 and dv case filled by my wife. I want to submitt recoded evidence of adultry and cruilty done by my wife so please answer following questions. 1. Please give procedure for submission of electronic evidence. 2. How to get 65 B certificate ( whether it is self made certificate or not)
Electronic Records within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (t) of the Information Technology Act (the IT Act), as amended in 2008, “means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or...or computer generated micro fiche”...
2)As per Section 65B of the Act, if the original electronic record itself is produced before the Court as evidence it need not be supported by the certificate, only those electronic records which are printouts, originals copied to CDs, pen drives or otother digital storage devices are to be certified, where the conditions contained in Section 65B (2) of the Act apply. ...
2) you have to prepare transcripts of the conversation and enclose it in your petition filed in court
3) it has to be proved that voice is of your wife and it has not been tampered with
Dear Sir,
Please put the following in the browser and get the relevant matter.
Please put the following in the browser and get the relevant matter.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Indian_Law/Criminal_evidence
The Supreme Court of India, in a path breaking dynamic judgment, ( Shafhi Mohammad Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh SLP (Crl.)No.2302 of 2017)1, has rationalized the law relating to the admissibility of the electronic evidence particularly in view of the provision of Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 54-A of the Cr.P.C. provide for videography of the identification process and proviso to Section 164(1) Cr.P.C. provide for audio video recording of confession or statement under the said provision.
In Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 (Supp) SCC 611, a Three-Judge Bench considered the issue of the admissibility of the electronic evidence and held 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 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.
The Supreme Court also referred to the case of Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329, and 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 documentary evidence.
Further reference was made to the case of Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178, wherein 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. Scientific and electronic evidence can be a great help to an investigating agency.
In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473, delivered by a Three-Judge Bench, 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 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. However, observations in para 14 to the effect that electronic record can be proved only as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which is not a correct view as per the prevailing legal principles.
It has been held that 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 can 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 Section 65B(h). Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be held to be a complete code on the subject. In Anvar P.V. case the Supreme Court clarified that primary evidence of electronic record 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 matter.
Sec. 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 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. The requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) is not always mandatory.
The Supreme Court clarified the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, holding that 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.
You need to prepare an affidavit and comply with 65B certificate compliance as mentioned in the said section about the condition of the device, it's regular maintenance etc. You also need to obtain a certificate from your service provider about the same
Have to submit it either in pen drive or disc with your reply in both 125 and DV case. It`s self declaration affidavit, format available.
Format is given in amended evidence act. Ask your advocate to get a certificate under section 65 B of Evidence act prepared for you
The electronic evidence is admissible in evidence in the manner as envisaged in section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. While producing the electronic evidence you have to give a certificate to the Court under section 65B(4) of the Indian evidence Act.
Respected sir...
If you have the recorded thing with you in form of audio or video recording then you have right to produce the same along with certificate of 65-B of IEA you need not to worry your lawyer will make it done for you... And that for my is also available to the shops in the court oermisis... And that will work for you...
Thank you
Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. ... The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer.
Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act says that electronic records needs to be certified by a person occupying a responsible official position for being admissible as evidence in any court proceedings.
if a statement was given in the form electronic evidence, a certificate was required from a person occupying a responsible position in relation to operation of the relevant device or the management of relevant activities.