Without Section 65-B Certificate, the CD is Legally Non-Existent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines to Reopen SC/ST Case

“Acquittal Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible”, Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to interfere with an order of acquittal under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Anoop Chitkara dismissed the complainant’s appeal at the threshold, holding that the trial court’s judgment dated 30 July 2025 was “well reasoned,” neither perverse nor illegal, and therefore did not warrant appellate interference.

The Court reaffirmed two settled principles of criminal law: first, that electronic evidence without a mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is inadmissible; and second, that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely limited.

Allegations of Caste-Based Insult and CD Recording

The case arose from a complaint submitted by the appellant to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes alleging that the respondents had hurled caste-based abuses. The Commission referred the matter for action, leading to registration of FIR No. 116 dated 10 April 2017 at Police Station Pinjore, Panchkula, under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

The complainant claimed that he had recorded the alleged casteist remarks and stored them in a CD, which was supplied during investigation. However, after trial in SC/12/2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, primarily on the ground that the CD was not proved in accordance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and that the oral testimony suffered from material contradictions.

Aggrieved, the complainant approached the High Court in appeal against acquittal.

“Mandatory Means Mandatory”: Failure to Comply with Section 65-B

A central issue before the High Court was the admissibility of the CD containing the alleged conversation. The complainant admitted during cross-examination that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had been submitted.

Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that compliance with Section 65-B is mandatory for admissibility of electronic evidence. In the absence of such certification, the CD could not be read in evidence.

The High Court upheld the trial court’s reasoning that, without statutory compliance, the electronic evidence was legally inadmissible and could not form the basis of conviction.

Contradictions, Improvements and “Afterthought” Complaint

Justice Chitkara carefully examined the contradictions noted by the trial court. One prosecution witness deposed in court about specific casteist abuses, but when confronted with the original complaint (Ex.PA), no such words were mentioned. Another witness admitted that at the relevant time he was inside his shop attending to customers, casting doubt on his claim of witnessing the alleged incident.

The complainant’s own deposition revealed a significant improvement. In his complaint to the National Commission, he had alleged that the accused frequently used caste-based insults whenever they crossed in front of his house. However, while deposing in court, he confined the allegations to a single date, namely 20 December 2016. The trial court viewed this as a material contradiction.

The defence, in its statement under Section 313 CrPC, alleged that the complaint was motivated by a property dispute and an attempt to purchase their land at a meagre price. The defence also produced a disability certificate showing that one of the accused was wheelchair-bound for the last 4–5 years and unable to move without assistance. The trial court found this circumstance relevant while appreciating the prosecution’s version.

The High Court observed that the trial court had considered these contradictions and circumstances in detail and concluded that the complaint appeared to be an “afterthought.”

“Public View” Not Established

For an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act as it then stood, the insult must be intentional and in “public view.” The High Court noted that once the independent witnesses were disbelieved due to contradictions and admitted hostility, there remained no reliable evidence to establish that any humiliation, if at all, was done in public view.

The trial court had also taken note of alleged violation of Rule 5/3 of the SC/ST Rules, 1995, further weakening the prosecution case.

Limited Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal

Emphasizing the narrow scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court held that unless the judgment is perverse, manifestly illegal, or based on misreading of evidence, appellate courts ought not to substitute their own view merely because another interpretation is possible.

Justice Chitkara concluded that “on the face of it, the judgment is neither perverse nor illegal,” and that it was based on proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, no notice was issued and the appeal was dismissed at the threshold.

The ruling reinforces two critical principles: electronic evidence must strictly comply with Section 65-B to be admissible, and appellate courts exercise great restraint in disturbing acquittals. In cases under the SC/ST Act, while allegations of caste-based insult are serious, the prosecution must still meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt, including establishing insult in “public view.”

Finding no perversity in the trial court’s reasoning, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

Date of Decision: 27/02/2026