Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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