TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

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