Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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