Certificate U/S. 65B(4) Evidence Act Is A Condition Precedent To Admissibility Of Evidence By Way Of Electronic Record: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court acquitted and set aside the death penalty awarded to a man accused of raping and murdering a 23-year-old woman.
The Supreme Court has held that a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record.
The Court acquitted and set aside the death penalty awarded to a man (Appellant) for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman. The Bench allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld his conviction and the sentence of death imposed by the Trial Court under Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with Section 397 and 201 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan held, “We are not impressed with the evidence of the recovery and, in any event, merely based on the recovery no conviction for the offence charged could be sustained against the appellant in this case.”
Advocate Shri Singh represented the Appellant, while Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The deceased victim was working in Mumbai and residing at a Hostel. She last contacted her father while travelling to Mumbai from Vijayawada. Her body was found in a decomposed and partially burnt state near the Eastern Express Highway.
The Prosecution relied on CCTV footage allegedly showing the Appellant with the victim at the railway station.
The Appellant on the other hand raised an objection regarding the admissibility of the CCTV evidence
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court stated that the prosecution had failed to follow the mandate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) and also pointed out the failure to produce the Section 65B(4) certificate.
The Bench noted that it was dealing with a criminal case where the accused was being tried for offences involving capital punishment. “A court of law in this scenario cannot be technical about the manner of objections that are raised,” it held.
“Even though objection has not been raised specifically when the CCTV footage was exhibited by PW1, when PW-38 was in the witness box a specific question was put to him and subsequent to evidence, he deposed that he was aware of the necessity of furnishing 65-B certificate while collecting electronic evidence. On the facts of the present case, we are inclined to treat it as an objection taken at the earliest point in time. Thus, when the prosecution was aware of the need for the 65-B (4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs there was no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV footage,” the Court explained.
The Bemch relied on its decision in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) wherein it was held that “certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record.”
The Court held that “we are not able to place any reliance on the CCTV footage, insofar as an attempt is made by the prosecution to attribute that the appellant and the deceased EA were last seen together based on the CCTV footage. We eschew the same from consideration,”
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Bombay…and acquit the appellant with regard to the offences for which he was charged in this case. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 116)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Shri Singh, Pratiksha Basarkar, Sakshi Jain and Surabhi Vaya; AOR Pritha Srikumar Iyer
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare; Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Akash Kavade, Aniruddha Deshmukh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse and Adarsh Dubey; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
