CASE ANALYSIS:

I.
Kundan Singh V. State. (2016) 1 DLT (Cri) 144: (2016) 1 CCR 1
[Kundan Singh vs The State on 24 November, 2015 (indiankanoon.org)]

II.
Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha
Kalandi Charan Lenka vs State Of Odisha on 16 January, 2017 (indiankanoon.org)

III.
Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak
Kent Ro Systems Ltd & Anr vs Amit Kotak & Ors on 18 January, 2017 (indiankanoon.org)

IV.
Amish Devgan v. Union of India & Ors.
Amish Devgan vs Union Of India on 7 December, 2020 (indiankanoon.org)

V.
Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka
Mr. Virendra Khanna vs State Of Karnataka By: on 12 March, 2021 (indiankanoon.org)

VI.
Harsh Kadam @ Hitendra Kronor v. State of U.P.
Harsh Kadam @ Hitendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home ... on 13 December,
2021 (indiankanoon.org)

VII.
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. V. State Of Nct Of Delhi
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 17 August, 2022
(indiankanoon.org)

Submi ed by – Kunal Gupta

Intern, Symbiosis Law School, Noida
 I. Kundan Singh Versus the State
Case Brief
Case Name- Kundan Singh Versus the State (through Ms. Ashaa Tiwari, APP with ACP K.P.
Kukre )
Court- High Court of Delhi
Judge Bench- 2 Judge bench consis ng of Hon'ble Mr. Jus ce Sanjiv Khanna and Hon'ble Mr.
Jus ce R.K. Gauba
Case Type- Criminal Appeal
Subject- Criminal
Final Decision- Appeal dismissed.

The Further observa ons of the Supreme Court have been listed below: -
1. In para 44 of the judgement, every day, emails are downloaded, and paper printouts
of these emails are created. These emails could later become significant electronic
evidence. It's challenging to believe that these emails would be considered
inadmissible if the person responsible for downloading and prin ng them failed to
immediately or simultaneously record a cer ficate under Sec on 65B of the law.

2. In para 46 of the judgement, Sec on 65A specifies that the contents of electronic
records can be proven as outlined in Sec on 65B. We have already discussed and
referred to Sec on 65B. The significance of Sec on 65B lies in its ability to eliminate
the requirement of presen ng the original computer or the original storage media
containing the data or informa on. Instead, it permits the use of secondary evidence
in the form of computer-generated output, provided that a cer ficate from a
responsible official, connected to the opera on of the relevant device or the
management of relevant ac vi es as mandated by Sec on 65B of the Evidence Act,
is presented. Essen ally, Sec on 65B authorizes the introduc on and acceptance of
all computer-generated output as evidence, even without the need for the original
source to be produced. It allows for the use of secondary evidence without the
original being presented.

3. In para 50 of the judgement, to determine if something is hearsay and should be

rejected as evidence, we need to establish that the statement was made by someone
other than the person currently tes fying in court. Addi onally, the statement should
be presented in court as evidence to prove that what it claims is true. So, even if a
 statement is something said by the person tes fying, it won't be considered hearsay
unless it's being used to prove the truth of what it says.

4. In paragraph 53 of the judgement, informa on stored as business records or

maintained as part of rou ne ac vi es isn't considered hearsay, even if the person
who made the record didn't have personal knowledge of the events. These records
should be created as part of normal business opera ons, close to the me of the
events they document. In the context of Sec on 65B(4), the cer ficate should be
provided by a responsible official involved in managing the relevant device or
ac vi es. If these condi ons are met, it enhances the reliability of the evidence. In
such cases, the court can, at its discre on, presume that the content is genuine and
authen c under Sec on 114 of the Evidence Act.

Details: -
S. No. Par cular Details
1.
Case Name Kundan Singh …Appellant
Versus
The State …Respondent
(Through Ms. Ashaa Tiwari, APP with ACP K.P. Kukre )
2.
Relevant CRL.A. 711/2014
Cita ons

3.
Statute Referred  Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Sec on 302, 201, 404)

 Criminal Procedure Code

(Sec on 428, 171, 313, 311, 391)

 Evidence Act, 1991

(Sec on 65-B, 8, 3(2), 22-A, 45-A, 59 (2), 65-A, 17-31, 63, 65,
3, 65B (2), 65B (3), 65B (4), 65B (5), 62, 64, 59, 65(B)(1), 60,
114, 91, 92)

 Informa on Technology
(Sec on 2(c), 79-A)
4. Relevant Facts and
Issues A brief narra on of the facts: -
 1) On August 13, 2007, at around 8:45 p.m., a witness named
Brahm Singh (PW1) observed an unknown person throwing a
black rexine bag in a jungle near Lado Sarai bus stand. When
he tried to stop the person, the individual fled on a
motorcycle with a par ally noted license plate containing the
le ers "KA 9735."
2) Constable Raghubir Singh (PW13) also witnessed the incident
and joined Brahm Singh at the scene. They opened the bag,
discovering dismembered body parts, including two chopped
hands, two chopped legs (from the knee), and a head, but
without the torso. The iden ty of the deceased was
unknown.
3) Brahm Singh (PW1) reported the incident, and FIR
No.592/2007 was registered at Police Sta on Mehrauli.
Despite efforts, the iden ty of the vic m could not be ini ally
ascertained, and inquiries with nearby police sta ons did not
yield results.
4) Inquest papers were prepared under Sec on 171 Cr.P.C., and
a post-mortem examina on was conducted at the All-India
Ins tute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on August 21, 2007.
Subsequently, the uniden fied remains were cremated.
5) On September 10, 2007, Nirbhay Prashant (PW3) came
forward to iden fy the deceased as Vipin Kumar, the son of
late Kanahiya Singh and the husband of his sister. He had
reported Vipin Kumar missing at the Police Sta on Civil Lines,
Gurgaon, on September 5, 2007.
6) Addi onal informa on came to light, including the fact that
Vipin Kumar had a savings bank account with ICICI Bank at
Panchsheel Park branch and had last communicated with his
wife on August 12, 2007, using his mobile phone number
9313341707.
7) Through an examina on of call detail records (CDRs) and ATM
surveillance footage, the appellant (the accused) was
iden fied and subsequently arrested. The evidence and
materials collected during the police inves ga on, along with
recoveries made at the appellant's direc on, cons tute the
core evidence in the prosecu on's case.

5. Held in the case

The High Court’s decision: -

1) Sec on 65B is a part of the Evidence Act, which deals with

documentary evidence. There are two types of documentary
evidence: primary (the actual document) and secondary
(copies or oral accounts of the document's contents). Primary
 evidence is preferred, but secondary evidence can be used
under certain condi ons men oned in Sec on 65.

2) Sec on 65A explains that electronic records can be proved as

per Sec on 65B. We've already discussed Sec on 65B, which
is significant because it allows the use of secondary evidence,
like computer printouts, without needing the original
computer or storage media. However, a cer ficate from a
responsible official related to the computer or its
management, as outlined in Sec on 65B, must be provided to
admit this secondary evidence. In essence, Sec on 65B
allows the use of secondary evidence, like computer
printouts, without needing the original.

3) To determine if evidence qualifies as hearsay and should be

excluded, it's essen al to establish that the statement was
made by someone other than the person tes fying in the trial
or hearing. Furthermore, the statement should be presented
in court as evidence to prove the accuracy of what's being
claimed. In other words, even if a statement is an asser on
made by the person speaking, it doesn't count as hearsay
un l it's used to demonstrate the truth of what's being
asserted.

4) In reference to the cases of J.D. Jain versus State Bank of

India, AIR 1982 SC 673, Manilal Navava versus Sushila
Mahendra Nanava , AIR 1965 SC 364 and S.R. Ramaraj
versus Special Court, Bombay, (2003) 7 SCC 175. A er
carefully reviewing all the informa on and evidence
presented, it’s clear that the appellant Kundan Singh was
righ ully found guilty of murdering his friend Vipin Kumar.
When dealing with cases based on circumstan al evidence, it
is necessary to look at the overall impact of all the evidence
and not just individual pieces. In this case, the evidence and
facts support the convic on.

5) Informa on that is recorded as part of regular business

prac ces or common events is not considered hearsay, even
if the person who made the record doesn't personally know
the facts or events. For such a document not to be hearsay, it
should have been created around the me of the events it
describes and as a part of normal business opera ons or
events.
Sec on 65B(4) of the law specifies that the cer ficate should
come from a responsible official connected to the opera on
 or management of the relevant device or ac vi es. If these
condi ons are met, it enhances the reliability of the
evidence. In such cases, the court can, at its discre on,
presume that the content is genuine and authen c under
Sec on 114 of the Evidence Act.

6) It's important to recognize that simply allowing an electronic

record into evidence or admi ng it doesn't automa cally
mean that its contents have been unques onably proven as
true. Just labelling a document as an exhibit in court doesn't
eliminate the need to provide evidence to establish the
accuracy of what's contained in that document.

In summary, the trial court rightly accepted the cer ficate under
Sec on 65B of the Evidence Act (Exhibit PW-11/E) and relied on the
Call Detail Record (CDR) of telephone number 9313341707 (Exhibit
PW-11/A). The CDR indicated that a er Vipin Kumar's death, his
phone was used to make a call to a landline number (266495) in
Haldwani, suppor ng Nirbhay Prashant's (PW-3) tes mony.

A er carefully reviewing all the informa on and evidence presented,

it's clear that the appellant Kundan Singh was righ ully found guilty
of murdering his friend Vipin Kumar. When dealing with cases based
on circumstan al evidence, we must look at the overall impact of all
the evidence and not just individual pieces. In this case, the evidence
and facts support the convic on.

The court saw no reason to change the sentence given. Therefore,

Kundan Singh’s appeal has no valid reasons, and it is rejected.
6.
Interna onal 1) Lahore High Court in Baldeo Sahai versus Ram Chander and
Reference Others, AIR 1931 Lahore 546

The handling of documents in a legal case involves two steps.

 First, both par es submit the documents they want to use in
court.
 Then, in the second step, the court decides whether these
documents should be officially accepted as evidence or not. If
the court agrees to admit them, they are stamped with
certain legal details. If not, the documents are returned to
the party who provided them, with a note explaining why
they weren't accepted.

2) United States versus Khorozian, 333 F. 3d 498, 506)

 An electronically generated record is created en rely by a computer
or computer system, like call details or a fax report showing who sent
the fax, when, and to whom. These records don't involve any
statements or claims made by a person. So, they are not considered
hearsay because they aren't wri ngs or statements made by
someone.
7.
Other cases which Cases which were looked into by the Judge’s
were impacted by
this judgement 1) Balram Prasad Agrawal versus State of Bihar and Others;
(1997) 9 SCC 338
The Supreme Court discussed hearsay evidence, which is when
someone repeats what they heard from someone else. They
explained that not all hearsay evidence is inadmissible. If the
purpose of the evidence is to show that a statement was made
(without proving whether it's true or not), it can s ll be considered
as evidence. This can be important in understanding the behaviour
and ac ons of the person who heard the statement or others
present when it was made. So, some mes, even if a statement is
hearsay, it can s ll be used as evidence in court.

2) Anwar P.V. (S) versus P.K. Basheer and Others

The Supreme Court has clarified that when someone wants to use
electronic records (like computer printouts, CDs, videos, or pen
drives) as evidence in court, they must provide a cer ficate. This
cer ficate should state that the informa on in the electronic record
is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Importantly, this cer ficate must be a ached to the electronic record

when it's presented as evidence. These rules are in place to make
sure that the source and authen city of electronic records are
verified. Electronic records can be easily altered or tampered with,
so these safeguards are necessary to ensure a fair trial and prevent
any injus ce.

3) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu

A two-judge bench of the court discussed using electronic records as
evidence, par cularly printouts of call records from cellphones. They
referred to legal sec ons that allow for the use of secondary
evidence, which includes copies made using processes that ensure
accuracy.

Since call records are stored on large servers that can't easily be
brought to court, it was accepted that printouts from these servers,
created through a reliable mechanical process and cer fied by an
official from the service provider, can be presented as evidence. This
can be done with the help of a witness who can confirm the
authen city of the cer fica on or provide informa on based on
their personal knowledge.

4) Sudhir Engineering Company versus Nitco Roadways

Limited, 1995 (34) DRJ 86
The judgement was looked at in three stages-
First Stage: Both par es in a court case submit documents. These
documents are in the court's possession but are not officially
considered evidence yet.

Second Stage: If one of the par es wants to use a document as

evidence, they present it to the court. If the court agrees to accept it
as evidence, it becomes an official part of the case's record and can
be used as proof.

Third Stage: The final stage is when the court decides whether the
document is valid evidence or not. This usually happens during the
last stages of the case when the court examines the document
closely and determines if it proves or disproves something relevant
to the case.

5) Tomaso Bruno versus State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178

With the advancement of technology, the way we inves gate things
needs to be more scien fic and tech-savvy. Electronic evidence, like
digital documents and records, has become important in legal cases
to prove someone's guilt or responsibility.

In India, they made changes to the law in 2000 to accommodate

electronic evidence. There are specific rules (Sec on 65A and 65B)
about how electronic records can be used in court. It's important to
follow these rules to make electronic evidence admissible. For
example, if you have a printout of electronic records stored on a
computer, it can be used as evidence in court, but you need to meet
certain condi ons men oned in the law.

Using scien fic and electronic evidence, like computer records, in

court is very helpful for inves gators and the prosecu on. In some
cases, like the one involving Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab
vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 the transcripts of internet
transac ons played a crucial role in proving someone's guilt.
Similarly, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu u @
Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600, phone call transcripts from mobile
service providers were used to connect terrorists to the people who
planned the a acks. So, electronic evidence is becoming more and
more important in legal cases.

6) When person A talks to person B about something that

happened, what person B says about the conversa on is not
considered hearsay. But if someone wants to use what
person A said to person B to accuse a third person of
something, then it becomes hearsay. So, it's important to
understand the difference between repor ng what was said
(factum of statement) and proving if what was said is true
(truth of the statement) in a legal context.
The said dis nc on has been recognised and accepted in several
pronouncements in J.D. Jain versus
State Bank of India, AIR 1982 SC 673, Manilal Navava versus
Sushila Mahendr a Nanava , AIR
1965 SC 364 and S.R. Ramaraj versus Special Court, Bombay, (2003)
7 SCC 175.

1) Simply admi ng or allowing an electronic record into

evidence doesn't automa cally mean that its contents have
been proven true and beyond doubt. Just marking a
document as "exhibit" in court isn't enough to prove what's
wri en in it.
To prove the contents of a document, you need to provide addi onal
evidence. This principle is supported by legal cases like Sait Tarajee
Khimchand vs. Yelamar Satyam, Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra
Kumar Jaiswal, and Mohd. Kundan Singh vs. The State, which
emphasize that admi ng a document is one thing, but proving its
contents requires further steps.