Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal

"In view of the same, mere non-certification of the said Ex.P7 CD, as per the Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act will not give raise any doubt or suspicion in the mind of the Court, with respect to the commission of the offence by the accused." High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a notable ruling, has held that an objection regarding the lack of certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for electronic records cannot be entertained when raised for the first time during appellate proceedings.

A Division Bench comprising Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed that the absence of such a certificate does not cast doubt on the prosecution's case where the defense cross-examined the relevant witnesses without objecting to the electronic record at the trial stage, and where the remaining chain of circumstantial evidence independently establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant approached the High Court challenging the judgment of the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, which convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment for killing a pavement dweller with a concrete stone. The prosecution established its case through circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies identifying the accused fleeing the scene, the recovery of blood-stained items, and CCTV footage contained in a compact disc (Ex.P7). The appellant assailed the conviction primarily on the ground that the electronic record lacked the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The primary question before the court was whether the non-certification of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act can be raised as a fatal defect for the first time in appeal when no objection was taken during the trial. The court was also called upon to determine whether the chain of circumstantial evidence independently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 65B Objection Belatedly Raised In Appeal Rejected

The High Court observed that while the appellant relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence governing the mandatory requirement of certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the procedural facts of the present case did not warrant an acquittal. The Court noted that the appellant had raised the issue of non-certification for the very first time in appeal without demurring at the trial stage.

The Bench highlighted that the relevant witnesses who produced and proved the electronic footage were thoroughly cross-examined without any challenge being mounted to the admissibility or authenticity of the compact disc.

Absence Of Challenge During Trial And Section 313 CrPC Examination

The Court underscored that the defense allowed the electronic record to be marked into evidence without objection and even tested the witnesses on the contents of the footage during trial proceedings.

"The facts and circumstances of the above said case are different from the facts and circumstances of this case on hand, as there was no objection taken by the defence counsel in the course of the trial and as the corresponding witnesses i.e., P.W.11 and the I.O.-P.W.14 were examined in cross on that aspect also. Even under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., examination of the accused, nothing was pointed out on that aspect. It is not the case of the defence that Ex.P7 CD is not relating to the said offence covered under this appeal."

Circumstantial Chain Remains Complete Independent Of Electronic Evidence

The High Court further held that even if the electronic evidence in the form of the compact disc were to be excluded from consideration altogether, the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the appellant.

"Even if the said piece of evidence is ignored, still the chain was established to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt basing upon the other circumstantial evidence available on record. When the link is established in the chain of circumstantial evidences it should be held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt."

The Bench observed that multiple witnesses sleeping in the vicinity had heard the victim's cry and immediately saw the appellant fleeing from the spot, which, when coupled with the recovery of the blood-stained concrete stone and medical autopsy reports confirming fatal skull fractures, conclusively fastened liability on the appellant.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The ruling cements the principle that technical objections concerning electronic record certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act cannot be weaponized as an afterthought in appellate proceedings when the evidence was admitted without objection at trial.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2026