RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF

LAW

Name – Vatsal Dhar

Roll no. – 19140

Criminal Law Specialization

Submitted to – Dr. Manoj Sharma

Topic – Arjun Panditaro v. Kailash and ors. (2020) –

Case Analysis
 Table of Content

• Introduction

• Background

• Case Facts

• Issues

• Judgment

• Conclusion/ analysis
Introduction

One and everyone are accustomed to hearing that courts worldwide operate and
decide a particular legal problem based on the facts. Only when a fact is backed
up by reliable evidence is it accepted as true by the court. In the perspective of
the court, reality is what is demonstrated by the evidence. The evidence law is
regarded as the forum law that directs and aids the courts in coming to a decision
when addressing a particular issue.

A piece of evidence, which should not be confused with proof, helps the court
decide whether to accept or reject a claim. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a
statute that establishes guidelines for Indian courts to follow when accepting and
deciding whether to admit evidence that has been offered to them. In the case of
Ram Jas v. Surendra Nath (1980), it was determined that the fundamental tenet
of evidence law is that it should not interfere with the parties' substantive rights
but rather help to expedite their resolution via the administration of justice. In
order to help readers better comprehend the notions of evidence law, this page
includes a collection of precedent judgements that serve as a source of Indian
courts' interpretation of the Act of 1872.

Modern society has seen a dramatic transformation in how people work,

communicate, and connect with one another as a result of technological
advancements. Many tasks have been digitised, and there has been a significant
increase in the usage of electronic gadgets. As a result, a lot of information about
one's employment, communication, and other everyday activities is stored in a
digital format. As those records might be used to support or refute the presence
of crucial facts and circumstances in any given case, the Law of Evidence needed
to be appropriately amended to recognise and include the records as admissible
evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which outlines the laws governing evidences in
India, contains two provisions, 65A and 65B, dealing with electronic evidence
and when and how it could be allowed by Indian courts. Electronic recordings
must be certified in line with Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act ("Act") in order
to be accepted, the Supreme Court declared in Arjun Pandit Rao v. Kailash
Kushanrao. The certificate provides information on any equipment used to
produce the electronic record and acts as identifying evidence for it. It is signed
by a person who is in charge of managing the relevant activities or how the
relevant equipment is used.
Background

In July 2019, a Supreme Court Division Bench sent the enquiry to a bigger bench.
As a result of its two contradicting findings, the Supreme Court merged the case,
which was an appeal against a Bombay High Court order, to identify the
appropriate legal standing. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar's ("Appellant's") election to
the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for the November 2014 session was
challenged by the Respondents in the Bombay High Court. A unsuccessful
candidate named Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal filed one election petition under
the name "Respondent," while an elector named Chaudhary filed the other. Based
on video evidence, the respondents argued that the election was unlawful since
nomination papers were not filed in a timely way. The Bombay High Court
accepted the electronic evidence despite the lack of a Certificate and determined
that the election was invalid because the party was in "substantial compliance"
with the pertinent laws. The issue of issuing the Certificate under Section 65B (4)
has been discussed by the Supreme Court several times. Any electronic record
used as documentary evidence may only be presented in accordance with Section
65B of the Act, the Supreme Court ruled in Anvar PV v. PK Basheer (2014). The
mandatory Section 65B concerns the acceptance of electronic records when
assessing the validity or reliability of evidence. In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, a Supreme Court Division Bench later came to the conclusion
that the Section 65 B (4) certificate requirement is procedural and can be waived
in the interest of justice if a party does not have one.
Facts of the case

• The Respondent, one of the unsuccessful candidates, in this case, disputed

the Appellant's election. It was claimed that because the nomination papers
had to be submitted by a specific time on a specific day.
• The appellants had deposited them with the relevant returning officer after
that time had passed, his nomination had not been submitted in accordance
with the law and ought to have been disqualified.
• The video camera records from both inside and outside the Returning
Officer's office were used by the responders to substantiate their allegation.
• The appellants were requested to provide the required certifications when
the issue was brought before the court due to the requirements of Section
65B of the Evidence Act.
• Yet, despite several requests made on behalf of regional and national
agencies involved in the administration of elections, no certification for the
electronic proof could be obtained.
• On the basis of the relevant Returning Officer's own oral testimony, the
High Court found that the electronic evidence was acceptable.
• As a result, the issue was settled in favour of the Respondents, and the
election of the Appellant was annulled.

Issues of the case

In the current case, the Supreme Court had to decide between two crucial issues:

• Proving the legitimacy of the appellant's choice.

• To resolve the conflicting court decisions on the question of granting a
Certificate for electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Act
Judgment

Because the Bombay High Court's decision was backed by more than just the
electronic record data, the Supreme Court upheld it. The Supreme Court upheld
the ruling in Anvar P.V. and rejected the "clarification" in Shafhi Mohammed,
stating that a Certificate under Section 65B is necessary before electronic
evidence may be considered. The Madras High Court's ruling in K. Ramajyam,
which held that a person in charge of computer equipment may provide evidence
instead of the Certificate, was also overturned by the Supreme Court.. The
Tomasa Bruno ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court as well, which came
to the conclusion that Articles 65A and 65B are simply procedural and clarifying
in nature and cannot be treated as a comprehensive rule on the subject. The
Supreme Court has ruled that Section 65B (1) makes a distinction between the
initial electronic record saved in the computer and (ii) the computer output
containing that information, which may then be used as evidence of the contents
of the "original document." Law authorities take into account this distinction
when classifying evidence. The Supreme Court made it quite apparent that no
certificate is required if the "original document" is shown (as primary evidence).
By giving testimony in court and demonstrating ownership of the device in issue,
where the original information was initially saved, the owner of a laptop, tablet,
or even a phone, can do this. The only way to provide information stored in such
an electronic record in all other circumstances, where the "computer" is a
component of a "pc" or "network node," and mechanically trying to bring such a
system or network to the Court is not possible, is to use Section 65B (1) in
conjunction with the production of the necessary Certificate. The Supreme Court
also disputed whether a party cannot produce a certificate if there is no electronic
equipment available. According to the Evidence Act, the Code of Civil Procedure,
and the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court has the power to require the
production of any document. A request for its manufacturing may be made if the
certificate is not approved. It is stated that a party has fulfilled all necessary legal
requirements to get the Certificate. The maxims impotentia excusat legem and lex
non cogit ad impossibilia—which claim that "the law does not demand the
impossible" and "the alleged disobedience of the law is forgiven where there is a
disability that makes it impossible to observe the law," respectively—were taken
into account by the Court. The Supreme Court cited previous instances where this
dictum had been used in related legal circumstances. The Supreme Court has
ruled that electronic evidence must be presented no later than the beginning of
the trial. But, the accused shall not suffer substantial or irreparable harm as a
result of the judge's exercise of discretion in permitting evidence to be filed at a
later time in a criminal trial.

Comparable consideration will be given to the case's facts and the court's
discretion in line with the law if the accused wishes to offer the required
Certificate. If a trial is still ongoing, the proper certificate can be given at any
time to allow for the acceptance and use of evidence from an electronic record.
The Supreme Court also ordered that cellular firms and internet service providers
keep CDRs and other related information in a separate and secure way for the
applicable period in the event that a specific CDR or other document is seized
during an inquiry within that time (in accordance with Section 39 of the Act).

The usage of this is intended for all criminal situations. This will enable the
parties to request such documents when the defence is presenting evidence or
when information is required to cross-examine a particular witness.

The report by a five-judge group from 2018 proposing Draft Guidelines for the
Receipt, Retrieval, Authentication, and Preservation of Electronic Documents
was also noted by the Supreme Court. The Court considers that these Draft
Guidelines ought to be made necessary in order to advise courts on how to secure
and preserve electronic evidence.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling in the Arjun Panditrao Khotkar case has had a
profound impact on the admission of electronic evidence. The court has made
clear a number of significant concerns about electronic evidence, particularly
secondary evidence, both explicitly and obliquely. The court ruled that all of those
interpretations, including those that supported the acceptance of secondary
evidence of any electronic record under sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act,
were wrong. The Navjot Sandhu case and the Shafhi Mohammed case established
several problematic legal positions, and the Court explicitly identified such
issues. Furthermore, it protected the interests of justice by paying close attention
to the circumstances of the case and, in doing so, relieved the Respondents' need
for certification under section 65B, which they were unable to get from the
appropriate authorities despite their best efforts. Finally, it affirmed the P.V. Anvar
case ruling and determined that the certification requirements under section 65B
(4) were necessary in nature and could not be waived unless there were severe
circumstances, such as the one that occurred in the current instance. However,
they made it clear that oral testimony from the appropriate authority, as it did in
this instance, could not substitute for the certification requirements under section
65B (4) and would not be sufficient to allow the use of electronic evidence in
court. The Supreme Court's decision ends the debate over the interpretation and
meaning of Section 65(B) of the Act, as well as the issuance of certificates for the
submission of electronic data in court. One enabling aspect that will guarantee
that a party may access and depend on evidence to support their claims is
instructions to cellular firms and internet service providers to maintain records
that can be summoned if necessary. In the context of electronic documents, the
Supreme Court upheld the difference between main and secondary evidence.