It is humbly submitted to the Supreme Court of Indica that the evidences collected by the Robo
Cop can be admitted in a court of law because a) It is in accordance with the law b)Avaibility of
the best possible evidence
A) That it is in accordance with the law
The Supreme Court of India, in a path breaking dynamic judgment, Shafhi Mohammad
Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh1, 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.
The Section 65B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stated that
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an
electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or
magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be also a document
if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and
computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or
production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated
therein of which direct evidence would be admissible
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the
following, namely:-
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during
the period over which the computer was used regularly2 to store or process
information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by
the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
1
Shafhi Mohammad Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh (Crl.)No.2302 of 2017
2
the words regularly per-formed mean done with due regard to form and procedure as stated in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K.
Basheer
1. Section 62 and 63 of the Indian evidence act 1872 states the concept of Primary
Evidence and Secondary Evidence
2. As the evidences collected by the Robo Cop, presented in the court will be secondary
in nature therefore the provisions present in Section 65B will be applicable on it
3. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others3, delivered by a Three-Judge Bench, in
paragraph 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.
4. It has been held that in view of Three-Judge Bench judgments in Ram Singh and
Other v Col. Ram Singh4, it can be safely held that electronic evidence is admissible
and provisions under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 are by
way of a clarification and are procedural provisions.
5. Also in the case of State vs. Mohd. Afzal And Ors5, the court held that Computer
generated electronic records is evidence, admissible at a trial if proved in the manner
specified by Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Ability to furnish the official certificate
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 position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and
not of the opposite party.
As Mr P is the leading official of the Special Investigating Team (SIT), which is been set by the
SP of Kochi, therefore he possesses the authority to furnish a certificate which can be used to
officiate the electronic evidences.
3
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others 10 SCC 473
4
Ram Singh and Others v Col. Ram Singh SCC 611 1985
5
State v Mohd. Afzal and Ors 2003 VIIAD Delhi 1
B) Availability Of The Best Possible Evidence
1. It is submitted before the Supreme Court of Indica that with the increasing impact of
technology in everyday life, the production of electronic evidence with proper
authenticity has become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or liability of the
defendant
2. In the case of Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh6 held that omission to produce
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage, which was best evidence, raised serious
doubts about prosecution case, it can be said that the non-production of CCTV footage,
non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the
accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to
withholding of best evidence.
3. Thus, in the instant case the Photographic evidence which was collected by ‘Robo Cop’
during its investigation of the godown which has been proved by the Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act (supra) as being an electronic evidence, can be the best possible
evidence and can help the court in its decision, it can also be observed that the
photographic evidence of the godown is the only possible electronic evidence which exist
as the “godown” building was 100% burnt and “nothing was left except ashes”
6
Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.
1156/2013)
