Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application

In a significant reinforcement of procedural discipline regarding the admissibility of electronic records, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has dismissed a petition seeking to introduce a pen drive as evidence after a delay of over three years. Presiding over the matter, Justice B. P. Sharma upheld the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, ruling that the unexplained hiatus in producing the electronic record, coupled with the absence of its mention in prior investigative statements, rendered the application meritless. The decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach toward the authenticity of secondary electronic evidence when introduced at a belated stage of criminal proceedings.

Judicial Scrutiny of Procedural Lapses in Tendering Electronic Records

The controversy originated from an FIR registered on October 13, 2021, involving allegations under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The petitioner, Malini Jain, alleged that the respondent, a medical professional, had forged treatment documents pertaining to her late husband to conceal medical negligence that led to his demise. During the trial, the petitioner moved an application to bring a pen drive on record, which purportedly contained telephonic conversations of the deceased. These recordings allegedly featured the deceased informing his family that he was not receiving proper medical care. The petitioner contended that this electronic evidence was pivotal to establishing that the accused forged documents to mask a lack of actual treatment.

The legal crux of the matter centered on whether such electronic evidence could be admitted under the framework of the Evidence Act when produced several years after the registration of the FIR. The respondents vehemently opposed the plea, highlighting that the incident occurred in April 2021, yet the application to produce the pen drive was only filed in July 2024. Furthermore, they pointed out a critical evidentiary gap: none of the family members had disclosed the existence of such recordings during their initial statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of the CrPC.

The High Court meticulously examined the Trial Court’s reasoning, which had emphasized that the prosecution lacked any definite evidence to identify the voice in the recording. Justice B. P. Sharma observed that even if the pen drive were taken on record, the absence of a verified voice identification would render the evidence legally inconsequential. The Court also noted a disconnect between the charges framed and the evidence sought to be produced. While the accused was charged with forgery of documents, the recordings allegedly pertained to medical negligence—a charge not currently before the court.

The High Court placed heavy reliance on the timeline of the investigation and the subsequent trial. It noted that the three-year and three-month delay in filing the application under Section 92 of the CrPC (for production of documents/things) created a shadow of doubt over the authenticity of the electronic record.

"Perusal of the record reflects that the incident took place in the year 2021, and the application under Section 92 of the Cr.P.C. was filed after three years and three months, i.e., on 24.07.2024. Further, this fact was not disclosed by any family member of the deceased in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during the investigation."

The Ratio Decidendi of the judgment rests on the principle that the admissibility of electronic evidence is not merely a matter of complying with the certification requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act but is also contingent upon the evidence being produced in a timely and credible manner. An unexplained, prolonged delay in bringing an electronic device to the court's attention, especially when it was omitted during the investigative stage, raises serious concerns regarding tampering and authenticity, thereby justifying its exclusion.

In conclusion, the High Court found no infirmity in the lower court's refusal to admit the pen drive. By dismissing the petition, the Court has sent a clear signal to litigants that electronic evidence must be disclosed at the earliest opportunity to maintain its evidentiary integrity. The failure to mention the existence of such records during the Section 161 CrPC examinations proved fatal to the petitioner’s attempt to introduce new material mid-trial.

Date of Order: February 6, 2026