Supply Of Unauthenticated CD Violates Section 207 CrPC And Article 21 Fair Trial Guarantee: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Fair Trial Rights

“Accused Entitled To Clone Copy Of Electronic Evidence With Hash Value, Not Just CD”, Rajasthan High Court has held that mere supply of a CD containing alleged electronic evidence is insufficient compliance with statutory requirements, and the accused is entitled to a cloned copy of the original digital recording along with its hash value to ensure authenticity and integrity.

In a significant ruling Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu partly allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS, setting aside the trial court’s refusal to supply a cloned copy of the digital voice recording relied upon by the prosecution in a Prevention of Corruption Act case.

The Court emphasized that denial of authenticated electronic evidence “impinges upon the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.

“Electronic Records Are ‘Documents’; Accused Has Right To Their Complete And Authentic Copy”

The case arose from corruption proceedings where the prosecution relied on alleged recorded conversations of demand of bribe. The accused contended that only a CD and transcript were supplied, without the original recording device or any cloned copy with hash value, raising doubts about authenticity.

The trial court rejected the applications seeking cloned copies and production of the original device, prompting the accused to approach the High Court.

The High Court, relying on P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, reiterated: “Contents of electronic storage devices constitute ‘documents’… and must be furnished to the accused in the form of a cloned copy.”

It held that Section 207 CrPC mandates supply of all documents relied upon by the prosecution, including electronic records, and that this right flows from the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.

The petitioner, facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought: “a cloned copy of the original digital recording with hash value” and production of the original recording device.

He argued that the CD supplied was neither a true clone nor authenticated with hash value, and that incomplete or manipulated evidence would prejudice his defence.

The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that all necessary documents had already been supplied and no further disclosure was required at that stage.

The central issue before the Court was whether the accused is entitled to a cloned copy of electronic evidence with hash value, and whether denial of such material violates statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The Court held that electronic evidence possesses “inherent forensic attributes” and that authenticity can only be ensured through: “cloned copy with the hash value… necessary to authenticate the chain of the electronic record.”

It categorically ruled that: “Supply of an uncertified CD, not prepared through hash-value authentication, does not fulfill the statutory mandate under Section 207 CrPC.”

“Section 207 Does Not Permit Withholding Of Electronic Records”

The Court underscored that Section 207 CrPC imposes a mandatory obligation on the prosecution to furnish all documents forming part of the police report.

Importantly, it clarified: “Section 207 does not empower the Court to withhold any document… except where voluminous—and for electronic records, such ground ordinarily cannot be invoked.”

Thus, denial of cloned copies was held to directly prejudice the accused’s right to effectively defend the case.

“Denial Of Authentic Electronic Evidence Prejudices Defence And Vitiates Fair Trial”

The Court observed that without access to authenticated electronic material: “it cannot be concluded that the electronic material has been preserved and produced in an authenticated manner.”

Such denial: “would inevitably cause prejudice to the accused’s right to effectively defend his case.”

The Court also found that the trial court had failed to appreciate the settled legal position and had erroneously relied on precedents like Debendra Nath Padhi.

Relief Granted By The Court

Allowing the petition in part, the High Court: “quashed the impugned order… to the extent of refusing supply of clone copy”

and directed the trial court to: “provide a cloned copy of the original digital recording with its hash value to the petitioner.”

However, the Court clarified that issues regarding production of the original recording device and alleged manipulation would be decided during trial.

The judgment reinforces the evolving jurisprudence on electronic evidence, emphasizing that procedural compliance must extend to technological authenticity.

By recognizing cloned copies with hash values as integral to fair trial rights, the Court has strengthened safeguards for accused persons in cases relying on digital evidence, particularly in corruption prosecutions.

The ruling underscores that fairness in criminal trials today necessarily includes forensic transparency of electronic records, failing which the entire prosecution case may stand on questionable footing.

Date of Decision: 19 February 2026