VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

(VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES)

EVIDENCE PSDA
MOOT COURT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF TRIALA
IN THE MATTER OF:
RIMON AND ORS.
V.
UNION OF TRIALA

SUBMITTED TO:
MS. RAJNI KHERIA,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, VSLLS, VIPS

SUBMITTED BY:
ESHA TIWARI (08217703521) COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
SHIVANSH GUPTA (05917703521) COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
VANSHIKA VASHISHT (06617703521) COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
SHREY ARORA (10417703521) COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................. II

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................................. III

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................IV

ISSUES RAISED ...........................................................................................................................VI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR PROSECUTION ................................................................. 1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR PROSECUTION ............................................................. 3

PRAYER FOR THE PROSECUTION ................................................................................................. 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE ACCUSED…………………………………………………..8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR THE ACCUSED……………………………………………………..9

PRAYER FOR THE ACCUSED………………………………………………………………………14

I
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES
S. NO. CASES PAGE
1. D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 3

2. Selvi vs State of Karnataka & Anr, (2010) 7 SCC 263 3, 4, 10

3. SR. Sephy v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127 4
4. Dinesh Dalmia v. State, 2006 CriLJ 2401 10
5. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 5, 12
6. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 6, 12
7. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, 2005 11 SCC 600 12
8. K. Ramajayam v. Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2014) 2 MLJ (Crl) 41 12
9. Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P, 2014 SCC OnLine All 3562 5
10. Virendra Khanna vs State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC Online Kar 5032 5
11. Ram Singh v. Sonia, (2007) 3 SCC 1 6
12. Riley vs California 134 S.Ct. 2473 5

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

S. NO. STATUTE & REGULATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

II
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Triala has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Triala. The Article is reproduced herein:

”Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution.”

III
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
STATEMENT OF FACTS

In Triala, a diverse country with over 150 crore people, a group of five students from QBZ
University celebrated Proshina's victory in a cricket match against Triala. The celebration escalated
into chanting slogans and intimidation of the watchman, disregarding his warnings to cease their
activities. As their celebration continued, they reportedly incited others to join, assaulted students
who refused, and damaged hostel property.

The police of Drima filed a case against these students under section 124A of the Triala Penal Code
(TPC), linking them to a separatist movement in Kashir and alleging connections with a banned
terrorist organization, Jais-E-Mehmd. The police presented call records and WhatsApp messages
spanning six months as evidence, suggesting the students' involvement in organizing unrest and
receiving funds from illegal groups.

The following day, authorities arrested all five students from the hostel premises. Tragically, one of
the students, Rimon, was taken to the hospital three days later due to a medical emergency. Rimon,
before his untimely death, alleged to a doctor named Joe that after their arrest, they were subjected
to a forceful and possibly improperly conducted narco analysis test. He claimed experiencing
respiratory issues and alleged police brutality, asserting they were coerced into admitting
connections with the banned organization. Shockingly, Rimon passed away shortly after making
these statements, with the doctor attributing his demise to complications arising from the poorly
conducted test.

Subsequently, the students filed a writ petition in the high court of Drima challenging their arrest
and the FIR's quashing. They argued that their celebration was within their fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression and wasn't intended to incite violence or hatred against the
government.

However, the high court dismissed their petition, deeming their slogans and actions seditious,
creating disaffection towards the government and supporting the alleged conspiracy to promote
separatist sentiments.

Undeterred, the students appealed to the Supreme Court of Triala. Their appeal questioned the
constitutionality of section 124A of the TPC, the use of call records and WhatsApp messages as
evidence, the validity of narco analysis tests, and alleged violations of their right to privacy. They

IV
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
argued that these laws were remnants of colonial rule, conflicting with the core principles of the
Triala constitution and frequently misused by governments to suppress dissent.

The supreme court admitted their appeal, framing issues to determine the students' locus standi to
challenge section 124A, its compliance with constitutional articles, the constitutionality of the narco
analysis test, and the justification for using electronic evidence in the case.

V
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

ISSUES RAISED

-I-

WHETHER THE NARCO ANALYSIS TEST IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

-II-

WHETHER THE USE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY

JUSTIFIED?

VI
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR APPELLANTS

I. WHETHER THE NARCO ANALYSIS TEST IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

The use of narco-analysis, lie-detector tests, and brain-mapping techniques without the
accused's consent violates Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, safeguarding against self-
incrimination. Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to testify against
themselves, applicable only when charged with an offense. Statements obtained through these
tests aren't admissible in court but can aid in further investigations.
For evidence to be restricted under Article 20(3), specific conditions must apply: the accused
must have been charged, the statement's relevance to the crime, the compelled nature of the
statement, and the statement obtained under duress.
The Supreme Court, in cases like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Selvi v. State of
Karnataka, deemed involuntary use of these tests as cruel and violative of the right to life and
liberty under Article 21. The Court ruled that these techniques constitute testimonial
compulsion, infringing on the right against self-incrimination. It emphasized the need for valid
consent before administering such tests.
Recent judgments, like the Sister Abhaya murder case and SR. Sephy v. CBI, upheld that even
if conducted with consent, the results of these scientific tests can only be used to prove
discovery of fact, following the Indian Evidence Act's Section 27, restricting their admissibility
as evidence in court.

II. WHETHER THE USE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY

JUSTIFIED?

Electronic evidence is subject to specific conditions for admissibility, and challenges arise
concerning privacy, due process, and admissibility. The constitution of Triala protects privacy
under Article 21, and the admission of call records and WhatsApp messages may raise privacy
concerns by exposing irrelevant personal conversations. In a case where police searched phones
without a warrant, the Allahabad High Court stressed the importance of lawful authorization to
avoid violating constitutional rights.
Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination, including providing passwords or access to
digital devices. In Virendra Khanna vs State of Karnataka, it was argued that revealing
passcodes lacked legal provision, infringing on privacy and the right against self-incrimination.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act outlines conditions for admitting electronic evidence,

1
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
requiring a certificate to authenticate and confirm the record's integrity. In a case where the
prosecution failed to submit a certificate meeting Section 65B requirements, the admissibility of
electronic evidence was questioned.
Establishing a reliable chain of custody is crucial for evidence admissibility. The Supreme
Court emphasized this in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, highlighting the need for
an unbroken chain to ensure evidence integrity. Manipulation of digital records is a threat,
requiring comprehensive forensic analysis to detect tampering, as seen in Ram Singh v. Sonia
(2018). The risk of misleading or doctored information is heightened without safeguards, and
expert testimony may be needed to reveal fabrication. Instances like forced narco tests leading
to a death raise concerns about the prosecution's integrity in handling electronic evidence.

2
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR APPELLANTS
I. WHETHER THE NARCO ANALYSIS TEST IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
It is respectfully submitted that:
1. Narco-analysis tests, lie-detector or polygraph, brain-mapping or P300 without prior consent of
the accused or the subject would be violative of Article 20(3) of the Triala Constitution1 which
deals with the privilege against self-incrimination.
2. Article 20(3) of the Triala Constitution provides that, “no person who is accused of a crime can
be compelled to be a witness against himself”.
3. One can seek protection under Article 20(3) only if the following requirements are fulfilled:
i. Only an accused can avail of the protection guaranteed.
ii. Only when the accused is compelled to be a witness against himself.
iii. Only available if a person is charged with an offense.
4. The statements made by the testifier are not admissible in the Court; they can only be used for
further investigation purposes.
5. When evidence procured comes into the inhibition of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
i. The person who made the statement must have been accused of committing an offense at
that time.
ii. The statement had material applicability to the criminality of the accused.
iii. The accused was forced or compelled to make that statement.
iv. The force used on the accused should come under duress.

6. In D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal2 , The SC ruled that involuntary administration of the
polygraph and narco test will amount to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in the context
of Article 21 or the Right to Life and Liberty.

7. The Supreme Court in Selvi vs State of Karnataka & Anr3 considered the constitutionality of
various evidence gathering techniques including narcoanalysis, BEAP (Brain Electrical
Activation Profile) or ‘brain mapping’, and polygraph tests. The Court ruled that the use of such
neuroscientific investigative techniques constituted testimonial compulsion and violated an
accused person’s right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), and their right to life and

1
INDIAN CONST. Art. 20, clause 3
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
2
AIR 1997 SC 610
3
(2010) 7 SCC 263
3
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution4. The Court held that the protection against
self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution would have to be read considering the
multiple dimensions of personal liberty under Article 21 such as the right to a fair trial and
substantive due process. It also held that this would be applicable to the accused, suspects and
witnesses, and would not be confined to the courtroom, but would be applicable in all cases
where the charge may end in a prosecution. The Court, after tracing the jurisprudence of the
right to privacy in India discussed the importance of mental privacy and the choice to speak or
stay silent, as well as their intersection with personal autonomy as aspects of the right to
privacy. The Court observed that the right to privacy under Article 21 should account for
interaction with Article 20(3), the right against self-incrimination. The Court further held that
drug induced revelations and measurement of physiological responses would amount to an
intrusion into the mental privacy of the subject and that forcible extraction of testimonial
responses was not provided for under any statute and could not be a reasonable exercise of
policing functions. The Court therefore ordered that these tests could not be administered
without the valid consent of the accused.
8. Statements made in custody are considered to be unreliable unless they have been subjected to
cross-examination or judicial scrutiny. Scheme created by the Code of Criminal Procedure and
the Evidence Act also mandates that confessions made before police officers are ordinarily not
admissible as evidence and it is only statements made in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate
which can be given weightage. The doctrine of "excluding the fruit of a poisonous tree" has
been incorporated in Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 18725.
9. In a judgement delivered in the controversial Sister Abhaya murder case, the High Court of
Kerala has ruled that the results of narco-analysis and brain mapping process done on the
accused cannot be used as evidence. In SR. Sephy v. CBI6 , the Court followed the principle
laid down in the landmark decision in Selvi & others v State of Karnataka7 , the Court held
that the results of such scientific tests, even if carried out with the consent of the accused, can
be used only for the purposes of proving discovery of fact in accordance with Section 27 of the

4
INDIAN CONST. Art. 21
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
5
The Indian Evidence Act, No.1, Parliament Acts of 1872
Sec. 24, “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession
appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against
the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused
person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or
avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.”
Sec. 25, “No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
Sec. 26, “No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate1, shall be proved as against such person.”
6
2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127
7
Supra note 3
4
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
Indian Evidence Act.

II. WHETHER THE USE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY

JUSTIFIED?

It is respectfully submitted herein:

1. Electronic evidences can be used only in certain cases where proper care is taken. Electronic
evidences face to many challenges like issues of privacy, due process and their admissibility.
2. Privacy of an individual is a fundamental righted vested in the constitution of Triala under
article 21. Admitting call records and WhatsApp messages raises privacy concerns. The use of
such evidence may inadvertently expose personal and private conversations that are not directly
relevant to the case at hand. The case8 dealt with the search of mobile phone incident to arrest,
it underscored the need for law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching digital devices
and raised broader privacy concerns. Here the police officers investigating the case searched the
phones of the accused without any warrant. In Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P.9, the Allahabad
High Court stressed the importance of obtaining lawful authorization, such as a valid search
warrant, before accessing and using electronic records. Unauthorized access may render the
evidence inadmissible due to violations of constitutional rights.
3. Also, the issue of privacy and the right against self-incrimination guaranteed under article 20(3)
of the constitution of Triala protects the accused from submitting any incriminating information
which includes giving passwords and digital finger prints or access to digital devices. As said in
the case of Virendra Khanna vs State of Karnataka10,the opposition to the application was
based on the grounds that there is no particular provision for the revelation of the pass code and
that the trial court lacks the inherent authority to order unlocking of the phone/computer. Here
the police officers of Drima infringed the right to privacy and the right against self-
incrimination.
4. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals specifically with the admissibility of
electronic evidence, including computer-generated records. It outlines the conditions under
which electronic evidence can be admitted in court. When presenting any kind of electronic
evidence in the court of law the parties presenting the electronic evidence needs to be very
careful and diligent and should follow the guidelines established11. Under Section 65-B(4) of
the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an
electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:

8
Riley vs California 134 S.Ct. 2473
9
Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 3562
10
2021 SCC Online Kar 5032
11
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473
5
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
5. (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
6. (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
7. (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that
record;
8. (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of
the Evidence Act; and
9. (e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in
relation to the operation of the relevant device.
10. Herein the prosecution has not submitted any certificate which is capable of fulfilling the above
mention conditions and as per section 65B of the Evidence Act and thus the electronic evidence
are not admissible if we presume for even a second that these evidences obtained are not
constitutionally unjustified. This certificate is required to authenticate the electronic record and
confirm that it has not been tampered with.
11. Establishing a reliable chain of custody is imperative for the admissibility of electronic
evidence. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai12, the Supreme Court emphasized
the need for a continuous and unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity of evidence. If
there are gaps or uncertainties in the chain of custody of call records and messages, it may cast
doubt on the reliability of the evidence.
12. The potential for manipulation of digital records poses a significant threat to the reliability of
evidence. In Ram Singh v. Sonia (2018)13, the Delhi High Court stressed the importance of
comprehensive forensic analysis to detect any tampering or manipulation of electronic
evidence. Without such safeguards, there is a risk of presenting misleading or doctored
information. Call recordings or WhatsApp text messages are very easy to tamper with, with the
evolution of editing software these evidences can easily be edited as original and only the
experts in the field can detect the technical nuances. The court may rely on expert testimony to
establish that the evidence is false and fabricated. And just like the narco test was forced and led
to the death of one accused shows that the prosecution is very desperate to implicate the
accused they may as well have tampered with call recordings and text messages.

12
State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (Dr), (2003) 4 SCC 601
13
(2007) 3 SCC 1
6
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

PRAYER FOR THE APPELLANTS

AND/OR wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given,
and authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Triala
may be pleased to declare that:
1) The Narco Analysis test is violative of Article 20(3) and hence constitutionally
invalid and,
2) The use of electronic evidences is not constitutionally justified,

Pass any order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests
of justice, equity and good conscience, all of which is respectfully submitted.

And for this act of kindness, the Prosecution duty bound shall ever pray.

DATE: 12/12/2023 S/d

PLACE: SUPREME COURT OF TRIALA (COUNSELS FOR PROSECUTION)

7
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR RESPONDENT

I. WHETHER THE NARCO ANALYSIS TEST IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

The argument stands on the premise that narco analysis tests, akin to other scientific
investigative tools, do not inherently violate constitutional rights but should be employed
cautiously with strict adherence to safeguards. The constitutional permissibility is grounded in
the allowance of reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, provided they serve justice,
public order, or national security. Emphasizing the ethical considerations, the necessity of
informed consent, legal counsel presence, qualified medical supervision, and a limited use of
results, the argument supports the tests as aids for investigation rather than direct evidence of
guilt. In the case at hand, the use of narco analysis aimed to uncover connections with a banned
organization due to alleged seditious activities. The defense asserts proper conduct of tests with
voluntary consent, supervised by medical professionals, and intended solely for investigative
leads, as reflected in legal precedents. Ultimately, the argument underscores the balance
between investigative necessity and constitutional safeguards, asserting that when conducted
with due consent and under strict supervision, narco analysis tests align with constitutional
principles, serving the interests of justice and national security.

II. WHETHER THE USE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY

JUSTIFIED?

The counsel asserts that the Constitution of Triala doesn't explicitly bar the use of electronic
evidence and emphasizes Article 21, which safeguards life, personal liberty, and a fair trial.
Electronic evidence, obtained lawfully and following due process, contributes to fair
adjudication. Likely in tandem with the Triala Evidence Act, akin to Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, provisions possibly permit the admission of electronic evidence, subject to
authentication and relevance. Acknowledging the global recognition of electronic evidence's
importance in modern legal proceedings, the counsel stresses the need for safeguards to
preserve its integrity, preventing tampering and ensuring accuracy. Aligning with constitutional
values, the argument posits that electronic evidence should be treated equally to other forms of
evidence, fostering fair trials while facilitating justice administration. Citing legal precedents,
the counsel underscores courts' recognition of electronic evidence's admissibility, provided
proper procedures are followed. In conclusion, the counsel contends that admitting electronic
evidence in the present case aligns with constitutional mandates, ensuring fairness, upholding
justice, and truth pursuit while adapting to technological advancements in the legal system.

8
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR RESPONDENT

I) WHETHER THE NARCO ANALYSIS TEST IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

The Counsel most respectfully submits herein that:

1. The use of narco analysis tests does not per se violate constitutional rights. It is a tool
employed for investigation, akin to other scientific techniques like polygraph tests. Its purpose
is not to incriminate but to aid in uncovering facts and leads.
2. The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights for the interests of
justice, public order, and national security. Narco analysis tests, when conducted with proper
safeguards and in exceptional circumstances, fall within these reasonable restrictions.
3. Narco analysis test results cannot be admitted as evidence to establish guilt directly. The
Constitution enshrines the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty 14 .
These tests serve as investigative tools rather than conclusive evidence in court.

4. Safeguards and Ethical Considerations:

i. Informed Consent: The subject’s voluntary and informed consent is paramount before
conducting a narco analysis test. Coercion or forceful administration violates constitutional
rights.
ii. Presence of Legal Counsel: The subject must have the right to legal counsel before agreeing
to undergo the test. This ensures protection against self-incrimination and safeguards their
rights.
iii. Qualified Medical Supervision: The test should be conducted under the supervision of
qualified medical professionals to prevent any harm or adverse effects on the subject’s health,
as seen in the unfortunate case of Rimon.
iv. Limited Use: The results should only serve as leads for further investigation and not as direct
evidence in court.

5. Application in the present case:

i. The use of narco analysis tests in this case was necessitated by the circumstances
surrounding the alleged seditious activities of the students. The administration of these tests was
aimed at uncovering information related to their alleged connections with a banned terrorist
organization and their involvement in inciting separatist sentiments.
ii. The defense stresses that the tests were conducted under the supervision of qualified medical
professionals to ensure the safety and well-being of the subjects. The unfortunate incident
14
INDIAN CONST. Art. 21

9
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
involving Rimon's health complications should be regarded as an exceptional case and not
reflective of the general conduct of narco analysis tests.
iii. Drawing from the precedent set in the case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010)15, the
court highlighted the need for informed consent before conducting such tests. It's crucial to
emphasize that the tests must not be conducted forcibly or without the subjects' voluntary
agreement.
iv. The defense argues that the tests, in this case, were conducted with proper consent. Prior to
the administration of the narco analysis test, it is established that the students were duly
informed about the nature of the test and had consented to undergo the procedure voluntarily.

6. Legal precedents:
i. Dinesh Dalmia v. State (2013)16: The Madras High Court acknowledged the relevance of
narco analysis tests in certain cases while emphasizing that the test results should be considered
only as clues or leads for further investigation and not as direct evidence to establish guilt.

7. Conclusion
i. The use of narco analysis tests, while not inherently violating constitutional rights, must be
approached with utmost caution and adherence to stringent safeguards. These tests serve as
investigative aids rather than conclusive evidence to establish guilt directly.
ii. The application of narco analysis in the case of the students involved in alleged seditious
activities aimed at uncovering crucial information regarding their purported connections with a
banned organization was justified under exceptional circumstances. However, it's imperative to
emphasize that the tests were conducted with voluntary and informed consent, supervised by
qualified medical professionals, and intended solely as leads for further investigation, as seen in
legal precedents.
iii. Therefore, in balancing the investigative necessity with constitutional safeguards, the use of
narco analysis tests, when conducted with proper consent, under supervision, and limited for
investigatory purposes, aligns with constitutional principles while serving the interests of justice
and national security.

II) WHETHER THE USE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCES ARE

CONSTITUTIONALLY
JUSTIFIED?
The counsel respectfully submits herein that:

15
(2010) 7 SCC 263
16
2006 CriLJ 2401
10
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
1. The Constitution of Triala does not explicitly prohibit the use of electronic evidence. Article
21 of the Triala Constitution ensures the protection of life and personal liberty, which includes
the right to a fair trial. Electronic evidence, when obtained lawfully and in adherence to due
process, aids in fair adjudication.
2. The Triala Evidence Act likely encompasses provisions that permit the admission of
electronic evidence, subject to authentication and relevancy. Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act17, which may be pari materia with the laws of Triala, deals with the admissibility
of electronic evidence.
3. Electronic evidence can be deemed admissible when proper authentication procedures are
followed. In today's digital age, electronic evidence is often crucial in legal proceedings. Courts
worldwide have recognized the importance of adapting to technological advancements to ensure
a fair trial and effective dispensation of justice.
4. The use of electronic evidence should be accompanied by safeguards to ensure its integrity.
This includes maintaining a chain of custody, preventing tampering or manipulation, and
verifying its accuracy to maintain trust in the legal system.
5. While safeguarding individual rights, the admissibility of electronic evidence should be
balanced with the interest of justice, ensuring that crucial evidence is not excluded solely due to
its digital form.

6. Interpretation:
i. The Constitution of Triala doesn't discriminate based on the form of evidence. Just as paper
documents are admissible, electronic evidence, if meeting the required standards of authenticity
and relevance, should be considered equally valid.
ii. The courts interpret laws in a manner that aligns with the constitutional principles and
values. Allowing the use of electronic evidence assists in the effective administration of justice,
which is a fundamental constitutional value.
iii. The Constitution is a living document that adapts to societal changes. Courts, through
dynamic interpretation, recognize the evolution of technology and acknowledge the importance
of electronic evidence in contemporary legal proceedings.

7. Application to the case:

17
The Indian Evidence Act, No.1, Parliament Acts of 1872
Sec. 65B, “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which
is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter
referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are
satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without
further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of
which direct evidence would be admissible.
11
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
i. The court should treat electronic evidence on par with other forms of evidence, recognizing
its importance in modern society. The data obtained from call records and WhatsApp messages
must be considered valid if meeting the necessary authentication standards.
ii. Admitting electronic evidence in this case aligns with the constitutional value of ensuring
fair trials and upholding justice. It helps in ascertaining the truth and aids in reaching a just
decision.
iii. The call records and WhatsApp messages, if obtained legally and without tampering, should
be presumed authentic unless there's evidence suggesting otherwise. This presumption is
essential for a fair trial.

8. Legal Precedents:
i. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others (2014)18: In this Indian Supreme Court case, the
Court ruled that electronic evidence must be authenticated under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act to be admissible. However, it was also recognized that in certain situations, it
might be impossible to obtain a certificate due to the nature of the evidence. This case
underscores the importance of authentication but allows flexibility in exceptional
circumstances.
ii. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai (2003)19: The Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of using evidence available through modern technology to arrive at a just decision.
While the case specifically dealt with taped conversations, it sets a precedent for courts to
consider evidence obtained through technological means.
iii. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005)20: The Supreme Court
allowed the admission of intercepted phone conversations as evidence, highlighting the
relevance and admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, provided it was
obtained lawfully and was relevant to the case.
iv. K. Ramajayam v. Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2014)21: The Madras High Court
held that electronic evidence could be admissible if proper procedures, including chain of
custody and authentication, were followed. The court recognized the significance of electronic
evidence in modern legal proceedings.

9. Conclusion
i. The admissibility of electronic evidence stands as an essential component of ensuring a fair
and just legal system within the framework of the Triala Constitution. The absence of explicit
18
2014 10 SCC 473
19
(2003)4 SCC 601
20
2005 11 SCC 600
21
2014) 2 MLJ (Crl) 41
12
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court
prohibition against electronic evidence in the constitution, coupled with the safeguarding of
individual rights and alignment with constitutional values, underscores its pivotal role in
contemporary legal proceedings.
ii. The constitutional principles of fairness, protection of life and personal liberty, and the
pursuit of truth guide the recognition of electronic evidence as a legitimate form of proof,
subject to proper authentication and relevance. As technological advancements continue, the
courts must adapt and interpret laws dynamically, acknowledging the evolving significance of
electronic evidence while upholding constitutional principles.
iii. Therefore, the admission and consideration of electronic evidence in the case at hand align
with the constitutional mandate of ensuring fair trials, upholding justice, and facilitating the
pursuit of truth, maintaining the integrity of the legal system while embracing technological
advancements in the dispensation of justice.

13
 Law of Evidence PSDA Moot Court

PRAYER FOR THE RESPONDENT

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given, and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Triala
may be pleased to declare that:
1) The Narco Analysis test is constitutionally valid and,
2) The use of electronic evidences is constitutionally justified,
ND/OR

Pass any order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience, all of which is respectfully submitted.

And for this act of kindness, the Accused duty bound shall ever pray.

DATE: 12/12/2023 S/d

PLACE: SUPREME COURT OF TRIALA (COUNSELS FOR ACCUSED)

14