Section 65B Indian Evidence Act | Electronic Records Not Accompanied By Certificate Are Inadmissible; Oral Evidence Cannot Substitute Mandatory Statutory Compliance: Madras High Court

"The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence, if requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act are not complied with." Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, held that social media posts and screenshots are "electronic records" that must strictly adhere to the certification requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to be admissible in criminal proceedings. Setting aside the conviction of former MLA H. Raja, a bench presided over by Justice V. Lakshminarayanan emphasized that in the absence of such a certificate, even oral evidence cannot be used to prove the authorship or content of digital posts.

Strict Adherence To Statutory Procedure

The case originated from allegations that the appellant had made provocative social media posts on Twitter and Facebook in March 2018, allegedly inciting communal unrest. The prosecution relied upon various photocopies of screenshots, which were reportedly captured from news channels and web agencies. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant under Sections 153 and 504 of the IPC, largely basing its findings on the assumption that the appellant’s failure to publicly deny the posts constituted an admission of authorship.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether screenshots of social media posts, produced without a Section 65B certificate, constitute admissible evidence in a criminal trial. The court was further tasked with determining whether oral evidence can supplement the lack of technical certification and whether a Trial Court can rely upon the dismissal of a Section 482 CrPC quash petition as a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Electronic Records Require Section 65B Compliance

The High Court clarified that once information is stored or transmitted in digital form, it falls within the definition of an "electronic record" under the IT Act and the Indian Evidence Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's mandate in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Court reiterated that Section 65B is a complete code for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The bench observed that the prosecution’s reliance on secondary evidence—specifically photocopies of news channel screenshots—without a certificate was fatal to the case.

Secondary Evidence Of Secondary Evidence

The court underscored that a screenshot of a social media post, when reported by a news channel and subsequently photocopied, becomes "secondary evidence of a secondary evidence." Without the production of the original device or a valid Section 65B certificate, the chain of custody remains broken. The court categorically rejected the prosecution’s plea to use oral testimony to bypass this statutory requirement, noting that the law does not permit such exceptions.

Bold Pull-Quote: Mandatory Certification

"Unless and until the original device is produced, a party relying upon the secondary evidence is duty bound to produce a certificate under Section 65B and that such a certificate under Section 65B is sine qua non for admissibility of such evidence."

Unexplained Delay In FIR Registration

The Court also took strong exception to the unexplained six-and-a-half-month delay in registering the FIRs. It noted that the complaints were lodged in March 2018, yet the FIRs were registered only in September 2018. The absence of any explanation for this period suggested a potential for manipulation or fabrication of the prosecution's case. The court observed that the Trial Court had erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the accused, which violated the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Scope Of Section 482 CrPC Proceedings

The High Court further clarified the legal weight of its previous orders passed under Section 482 of the CrPC. It held that the dismissal of a quash petition merely indicates that a prima facie case exists to proceed to trial; it does not serve as a binding finding of guilt. The Trial Judge, therefore, erred by relying on the quash order to reject the defense's arguments instead of independently marshalling the evidence under the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Finding that the prosecution failed to prove the authorship of the electronic records and failed to explain the procedural lacunae, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the Court directed the refund of the fine amount, reinforcing the principle that procedural shortcuts cannot be countenanced in criminal trials.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2026