"Provisions Found Obsolete By UK In 1995 Were Readily Accepted By The Indian Legislature"- Madras HC While Discussing Scope Of Section 65B Of Evidence Act
The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench comprising Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh has remarked that it was rather unfortunate that the provision which was found obsolete by the United Kingdom in the year 1995 was accepted by the Indian Legislature in 1999. In that context, it was said that "It is rather unfortunate that the provisions found to be obsolete by the United Kingdom in 1995 were found to be readily acceptable by the Indian Legislature in the year 1999. By virtue of the same, certification requirements that were conceived by the United Kingdom in the year 1960, is now made applicable to modern computers, in the year 2000 by India. There could be no better instance of fitting a square peg into a round hole".
Senior Counsel Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, Senior Counsel A Ramesh, Senior Counsel ARL Sundaresan, Senior Counsel S Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel N Anandha Padmanabhan, and Senior Counsel T Lajapathi Roy among others, appeared for the appellants. APP A Thiruvadi Kumar, among others, appeared for the Respondents.
In this case, a criminal appeal was filed under the SC/ST Act. The Court was considering the conviction order against ten persons accused of the murder of a Dalit youth.
In its findings, the Court observed that there was no scope for tampering with the CCTV footage as the appellants had claimed. Subsequently, the Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the chain of events.
The Court also noted that the applicable law, i.e., Section 65A and Section 65B of the Evidence Act, is traceable to the Civil Evidence Act,1968 and Police and Criminal Evidence Act,1984, of the United Kingdom. In that context, the Court further observed that "the United Kingdom realized that it’s law has become outdated and it was decided that the authenticity of the electronic evidence could be addressed by concentrating upon the weight to be attached to such evidence rather than formulating complex and inflexible conditions as to its admissibility". In the same vein, the Court concluded that the present position in the United Kingdom is that the common law presumption that in the absence of the evidence to the contrary, the Courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time, operates with full force.
Resultantly, the Court also lamented that it was rather unfortunate that the provisions found to be obsolete by the United Kingdom in 1995 were found to be readily acceptable by the Indian Legislature in the year 1999.
Notably, the Court stressed the increasing importance of electronic evidence and suggested that a separate chapter should be brought in to deal with electronic evidence, instead of dealing with electronic evidence on par with documentary evidence.
In that context, it was said that "Hopefully, the Legislature applies its mind on the observations made by this Court supra and comes up with a separate chapter on electronic evidence in the Evidence Act by taking note of developments that have taken place in other countries. It is high time that the Legislature has a complete re-look and comes up with an appropriate legislation with respect to electronic evidence abreast with the prevailing scenario and make the procedure simpler for letting in electronic evidence during trial".
Cause Title: Yuvaraj v. State
