MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

No Guilty Should Go Scot-Free, No Innocent Should Be Punished -  65-B Certificate at any stage of Trial Electronic Evidence Admissibility: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the principle of a fair trial, the Supreme Court today allowed an appeal by the State of Karnataka, setting aside the orders of the lower courts that had rejected an application to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The apex court emphasized the importance of justice and truth in trial proceedings, stating, “The object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished.”

The case stemmed from the horrific serial bomb blasts that shook Bangalore in 2008, leading to a complex investigation involving electronic evidence. The prosecution’s attempt to recall a witness to provide a Section 65-B certificate for electronic records was previously denied on the grounds of perceived delay. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that such a certificate is a curable defect and can be produced at any stage of the trial, reinforcing the notion that trials must seek the truth above all else.

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, presiding over the appeal, noted that denying the prosecution the opportunity to produce the certificate would cause “great injustice” to the appellant. They stated, “By permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible prejudice to the accused.”

This landmark decision has significant implications for the way electronic evidence is treated in criminal proceedings, ensuring that technicalities do not overshadow the fundamental rights to justice and a fair trial.

The court’s ruling has been welcomed by legal experts and advocates for victims’ rights, hailing it as a step forward in the pursuit of justice in cases involving complex electronic evidence. The decision is expected to set a precedent for future cases, balancing the rights of the accused with the public interest and the pursuit of truth in the justice system.

Date of Decision: November 06, 2023

STATE OF KARNATAKA  VS NASEER @ NASIR @ THANDIANTAVIDA NASEER @ UMARHAZI @ HAZI & ORS.

Latest Legal News