Presentation

ATUL K. SHRIVASTAVA
(SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION, DELHI)
 According to Black's Law Dictionary, "Witness is one
who sees, knows or vouches for something or one
who gives testimony, under oath or affirmation in
person or by oral or written deposition, or by
affidavit”
 According to Bentham, "Witnesses are the eyes and ears
of justice”
What is meaning of Witness
 According to J. Wadhwa, "A criminal case is built on the
Importance of witness edifice of evidence, evidence that is admissible in Law.
For that witnesses are required, whether it is direct
evidence or circumstantial evidence
 To know the provisions of evidence act is as important as
Do –Re- Me( Sa Re Ga Ma Pa ---) is required for a singer
or a Musician
  George Herbert :- “the law is
not the same morning and
night”

Famous  Louis D. Brandies :- “A judge rarely

quotations performs his functions
adequately unless the case
presented before him
adequately”
  Gangs of snatchers/robbers busted
Cracking a  Accused confessed to have killed
Case ---
Vs  35 pieces of body
Proving a Case
 TYPES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEMS
Adversary system is the court
system where a judge decides on a
case argued by a prosecutor who
represents state and the defense
counsel who defends accused.
Practical Finally court adjudicates the
matter. Role is passive
Aspect Indian Judicial System
1. Adversary system
2. Inquisitorial system
In Inquisitorial system the
judge conducts the trial,
determines what questions to
ask, and defines the scope
and extent of the inquiry
Role of Court is active
Followed in France
 The edifice of the Indian
Criminal justice
administration system is
based on certain
fundamental maxims and
beliefs.
Continue
Let Hundred Guilty Be Acquitted
But One Innocent Should Not Be
Convicted
One of these is the
presumption of innocence of
the accused, requirement of
proof beyond reasonable
doubt in order to establish
the guilt of the accused etc.
Burden of Proof is always on
prosecution
Onus keeps on changing but
again initial burden is on
prosecution
Section 104– 113
Chapter VII
Part IV of BSA
 Last year, Hon’ble Minister of Home Affairs
introduced three new criminal laws aimed at
safeguarding the rights of Indian citizens. These
laws – the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
BSA 2023 (BSA), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – are
Replaced by intended to replace the Evidence Act (‘Evidence
repealing IEA Act’) 1872, Penal Code 1860, and Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, respectively.
1872 Hon’ble Home Minister, while presenting the BSA
2023 in the Lok Sabha, emphasized its objective
of consolidating and establishing general rules
and principles of evidence to ensure fair trials....

/
 The term “evidence” originates from the Latin
word evidens or evidere,
meaning :-
to show clearly;
to make clear to the sight;
to discover clearly;
Evidence to make plainly certain;
Meaning to ascertain;
to prove”....

/
 As per IEA Section-1:- It extends to whole of
India
but as per BSA Section 1(2) It applies to all
judicial proceedings in or before any Court,
Applicability including Courts-martial, but not to affidavits
presented to any Court or officer, nor to
proceedings before an arbitrator.
Scope of it’s applicability has been widened
beyond India
and also in Court Martial
  "document" means any matter expressed or
described or otherwise recorded upon any
substance by means of letters, figures or marks
or any other means or by more than one of those
means, intended to be used, or which may be
used, for the purpose of recording that matter
Document and includes electronic and digital records.
Section 2(d) Illustration (vi) added with numbering
 (vi) An electronic record on emails, server logs,
documents on computers, laptop or smartphone,
messages, websites, locational evidence and
voice mail messages stored on digital devices are
documents
 "evidence" means and includes—
(i) all statements including statements given
electronically which the Court permits or requires
to be made before it by witnesses in relation to
matters of fact under inquiry and such
statements are called oral evidence;
Section 2(e) (ii) (ii) all documents including electronic or digital
of BSA records produced for the inspection of the Court
and such documents are called documentary
evidence;
 Section 3(2)(e) while defining term Fact
That a man has certain reputation, is a fact

New provision Section 2(2) added

Words and expressions used herein and not
Omission of defined but defined in the Information
reputation Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nagarik
from Fact Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 shall have the same
meanings as assigned to them in the said Act
and Sanhitas.
 Facts which, though not in issue, are so
connected with a fact in issue or a relevant fact
as to form part of the same transaction, are
Section 4 BSA relevant, whether they occurred at the same
Section 6 IEA time and place or at different times and places.
 Earlier section 8 IEA is now Section 6 in BSA and it
has been now been Section 6 in BSA
Words Changed
Vakil ----- Advocate

Doctrine of res Proved ------ Provided

gestae Man -------- Person

now Section 6 Ravished ------ Raped

In Section 21 IEA Word Advocate replaced for
Barrister, pleader or Vakil
In Section 22 BSA old 24 Of IEA word coercion is
added
  In Section 24 Explanation has been numbered and new
Explanation II has been added
 Explanation II.—A trial of more persons than one held in
the absence of the accused who has absconded or who
Joint Trial fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section

Section 24 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of
BKS this section
Section 30 IEA  In Absentia trial
 So if an accused who has been declared PO will be
deemed to be Joint trial though not facing trial actually
  As per new law in Section 31 & 32 BKS
corresponding Section 37 & 38 of IEA E-Book

Now huge Websites, Official Gazette in Electronic or Digital

Form admissible
numbers of
 Now we can save papers and ultimately trees &
Law books not Environment
required
 Change in Section 35 BKS (41 IEA) Tribunal
Orders are now also covered
  Section 39. (1) When the Court has to
form an opinion upon a point of foreign
law or of science or art, or any other field,
Expert Section or as to identity of handwriting or finger
39 BKS impressions, the opinions upon that point
of persons specially skilled in such foreign
Section 45 & law, science or art, or any other field, or in
45 A of IEA questions as to identity of handwriting or
finger impressions are relevant facts and
such persons are called experts.
  (2) When in a proceeding, the court has to form an
opinion on any matter relating to any information
transmitted or stored in any computer resource or
(Continue) any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of

Section 39(2) the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in

section 79A of the Information Technology Act,
Section 45A 2000, is a relevant fact.
IEA  Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,
an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an
expert.
  79A. Central Government to notify Examiner of
Electronic Evidence. -
 The Central Government may, for the purposes of
providing expert opinion on electronic form evidence
Section 79A before any court or other authority specify, by notification

Information in the Official Gazette, any Department, body or agency

of the Central Government or a State Government as an
Technology Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
Act  Explanation. -For the purposes of this section, "electronic
form evidence" means any information of probative value
that is either stored or transmitted in electronic form and
includes computer evidence, digital audio, digital video,
cell phones, digital fax machines.
 1.CFSL, HYDERABAD
2.CFSL, LODHI ROAD,NEW DELHI
3.FSL,GUJRAT
Notification by 4.RFSL, DHARMSALA
central government
as per section 79 A of 5.SFSL,BANGALORE
Information 6.SFIO, NEW DELHI
Technolgy Act 7. CYBER FORENSIC LAB,ARMY
in official Gazette
CYBER GROUP,NEW DELHI
8.FSL, ROHINI NEW DELHI
  52. (1) The Court shall take judicial notice
Section 52 BSA 57 of the following facts, namely:—
IEA
Facts of which  (a) all laws in force in the territory of India
Court shall take including laws having extra-territorial
Judicial Notice operation
  Explanation 4.—Where an electronic or digital record is
created or stored, and such storage occurs simultaneously or
sequentially in multiple files, each such file is primary
evidence.
 Explanation 5.—Where an electronic or digital record is
produced from proper custody, such electronic and digital
Section 57 BSA record is primary evidence unless it is disputed.
Primary  Explanation 6.—Where a video recording is simultaneously
Evidence Four stored in electronic form and transmitted or broadcast or
new Explanation transferred to another, each of the stored recordings is

added primary evidence.

 Explanation 7.—Where an electronic or digital record is stored
in multiple storage spaces in a computer resource, each such
automated storage, including temporary files, is primary
evidence
  (vi) oral admissions;
 (vii) written admissions;
 (viii) evidence of a person who has
Section 58 examined a document, the original of
Secondary which consists of numerous accounts or
Evidence other documents which cannot
conveniently be examined in Court, and
who is skilled in the examination of such
documents.
  Section 61:- Nothing in this Adhiniyam
shall apply to deny the admissibility of an
Section 61 electronic or digital record in the evidence
BSA on the ground that it is an electronic or
digital record and such record shall,
A new subject to section 63, have the same legal
Provision effect, validity and enforceability as other
document.
 Section 62  Section 62:- The contents of
Special provisions electronic records may be proved in
as to evidence accordance with the provisions of
relating to
section 63.
electronic record.
  Section 63. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Adhiniyam,
 any information contained in an electronic record which is
printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or
magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by
Section 63 a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored,

Admissibility of
recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to
as the computer output)

electronic  shall be deemed to be also a document,

records.  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.
  (4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a
statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a
certificate doing any of the following things shall be
submitted along with the electronic record at each
instance where it is being submitted for admission,
Section 63(4) namely:—

BSA  (a) identifying the electronic record containing the

Section 65(B) statement and describing the manner in which it was

produced;
IEA  (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the
production of that electronic record as may be
appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic
record was produced by a computer or a communication
device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3);
  (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the
conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and
purporting to be signed by a person in charge of
the computer or communication device or the
management of the relevant activities (whichever is

Continue appropriate) and an expert shall be evidence of any

matter stated in the certificate; and for the
purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for
a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge
and belief of the person stating it in the certificate
specified in the Schedule.
  THE SCHEDULE [See section 63(4)(c)]

 CERTIFICATE PART A
 (To be filled by the Party)

 I, _____________________ (Name), Son/daughter/spouse of ___________________

residing/employed at __________________________ do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely
state and submit as follows:— I have produced electronic record/output of the digital record taken
from the following device/digital record source (tick mark):— Computer / Storage Media DVR
Mobile Flash Drive CD/DVD Server Cloud Other Other:

Prescribed ________________________________________ Make & Model: _______________ Color:

_______________ Serial Number: _______________ IMEI/UIN/UID/MAC/Cloud

Certificate as ID_____________________ (as applicable) and any other relevant information, if any, about the
device/digital record____(specify). The digital device or the digital record source was under the

per schedule
lawful control for regularly creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of carrying
out regular activities and during this period, the computer or the communication device was
working properly and the relevant information was regularly fed into the computer during the
ordinary course of business. If the computer/digital device at any point of time was not working
properly or out of operation, then it has not affected the electronic/digital record or its accuracy.
The digital device or the source of the digital record is:— Owned Maintained Managed Operated
by me (select as applicable). I state that the HASH value/s of the electronic/digital record/s is
_________________, obtained through the following algorithm:— SHA1: SHA256: MD5:
Other__________________ (Legally acceptable standard) (Hash report to be enclosed with the
certificate) (Name and signature) Date (DD/MM/YYYY): _____ Time (IST): ________hours (In 24
hours format) Place: ____________
 THE SCHEDULE [See section 63(4)(c)]
CERTIFICATE PART A
(To be filled by the Party)
I, _____________________ (Name), Son/daughter/spouse of ___________________ residing/employed at
__________________________ do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state and submit as follows:— I have
produced electronic record/output of the digital record taken from the following device/digital record source (tick
mark):— Computer / Storage Media DVR Mobile Flash Drive CD/DVD Server Cloud Other Other:
________________________________________ Make & Model: _______________ Color: _______________
Serial Number: _______________ IMEI/UIN/UID/MAC/Cloud ID_____________________ (as applicable) and any
other relevant information, if any, about the device/digital record____(specify). The digital device or the digital
record source was under the lawful control for regularly creating, storing or processing information for the
purposes of carrying out regular activities and during this period, the computer or the communication device was
working properly and the relevant information was regularly fed into the computer during the ordinary course of
business. If the computer/digital device at any point of time was not working properly or out of operation, then it
has not affected the electronic/digital record or its accuracy. The digital device or the source of the digital record
is:— Owned Maintained Managed Operated by me (select as applicable). I state that the HASH value/s of the
electronic/digital record/s is _________________, obtained through the following algorithm:—
SHA1: SHA256: MD5: Other__________________ (Legally acceptable standard)
(Hash report to be enclosed with the certificate)
(Name and signature)
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): _____ Time (IST): ________hours (In 24 hours format) Place: ____________
 PART B
(To be filled by the Expert)
I, ____________________ (Name), Son/daughter/spouse of _____________________ residing/employed at
_________________________ do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state and submit as follows:— The
produced electronic record/output of the digital record are obtained from the following device/digital record
source (tick mark):—
Computer / Storage Media DVR Mobile Flash Drive CD/DVD Server Cloud Other Other:
________________________________________ Make & Model: _______________ Color: _______________
Serial Number: _______________ IMEI/UIN/UID/MAC/Cloud ID_____________________ (as applicable) and
any other relevant information, if any, about the device/digital record_______(specify).
I state that the HASH value/s of the electronic/digital record/s is _____________________, obtained through
the following algorithm:—
SHA1:
SHA256:
MD5:
Other__________________
(Legally acceptable standard)
(Hash report to be enclosed with the certificate)
(Name, designation and signature)
Date (DD/MM/YYYY): _____ Time (IST): ________hours (In 24 hours format)
Place: ____________
 Types of Evidence I - ORAL EVIDENCE
Mainly Chapter IV Evidence Act
section 54 & 55
II - DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
Chapter V Evidence Act
section 56 to 93

Evidence -oral Oral Evidence It has to be direct

Documentary No hearsay

Documentary Can be proved by way of two

Evidence ways :- (section 56)
a- Primary Evidence
b- Secondary Evidence
 Section 61 BSA
Special provision The contents of electronic records
as to evidence may be proved in accordance with
relating to the provisions of section 63 BSA
electronic record

Section 63 BSA any information contained in an electronic

Mode of proof record which is printed on a paper, stored,
recorded or copied in optical or magnetic
to Electronic media produced by a computer
(hereinafter referred to as the computer
Evidence output) shall be deemed to be also a
document
Subject to fulfilment of certain conditions
No need to produce original or further
proof
  Electronic Evidence
 Primary Evidence and Secondary Electronic
Evidence

Section 63 of  Requisite certificate under section 63

the Indian would be required only in case of
secondary Electronic Evidence but not in
Evidence Act primary Electronic Evidence
 Judgeme https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1769219/ State
nts (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4
parts August, 2005
(2005) 11 SCC 600

Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September,

2014
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/
Journey of 2014 (10) SCC 473

section 65 B of Crux of It overruled Navjot Sandhu Two Judges Bench

Indian Anvar P V Larger bench Three Judges Bench

To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of
Evidence Act secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as
stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case does not lay
down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled
and we do so.
if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence
under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is
admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions
in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
 Shafi The applicability of requirement of
Mohamm certificate being procedural can be
ad vs relaxed by Court wherever interest of
State of justice so justifies.
Himachal
Pradesh The applicability of procedural
(2018) 2 requirement under Section 65B(4) of the
SCC 801 Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is

It has been to be applied only when such electronic

evidence is produced by a person who is
overruled now in a position to produce such certificate
being in control of the said device and
not of the opposite party
  Anwar P.V. partly overruled the earlier decision of the
Supreme Court on the procedure to prove electronic
record(s) in Navjot Sandhu ,holding that Section 65B is a
specific provision relating to the admissibility of electronic
record(s) and, therefore, production of a certificate under
Delhi High Court Section 65B(4) is mandatory. Anwar P.V. does not state or
Kundan Singh vs The State hold that the said certificate cannot be produced in exercise
on 24 November, 2015 of powers of the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C or, at the
Division Bench appellate stage under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Evidence Act is a
procedural law and in view of the pronouncement in Anwar
P.V. partly overruling Navjot Sandhu, the prosecution may be
entitled to invoke the aforementioned provisions, when
justified and required.
  If the judgment in the case of Anvar is
applied retrospectively, it would result in
unscrambling past transactions and
adversely affecting the administration of
Sonu @ Amar vs.
State of Haryana justice. As Anvar’s case was decided by a
18-07-2017 Three Judge Bench, propriety demands
2017 (8) SCC 570 that we refrain from declaring that the
judgment would be prospective in
operation. We leave it open to be decided
in an appropriate case by a Three Judge
Bench.
  We are in agreement with the aforesaid
findings. Learned counsel for the
appellants rightly argued that non-
Union of India & Ors.
vs. production of the certificate under Section
Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on
an earlier occasion was a curable defect
Date of Decision : 18-
04-2018 which stood cured. Law in this behalf has
2018 (16) SCC 273 been settled by the judgment of this Court
in Sonu alias Amar v. State
of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570
  Having regard to the above principle of
law, the High Court erred in coming to the
conclusion that the failure to produce a
State by Karnataka certificate under Section 65B(4) of the
Lokayukta Police Evidence Act at the stage when the
Station, Bengaluru charge-sheet was filed was fatal to the
Vs. M.R. Hiremath
prosecution. The need for production of
2019 (7) SCC 515
Date of Decision : such a certificate would arise when the
01-05-2019 electronic record is sought to be produced
in evidence at the trial. It is at that stage
that the necessity of the production of the
certificate would arise
 ● Certificate not required if original document is produced
● Certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act, a
condition precedent for admissibility of electronic evidence
● Application to be filed in court if person/ authority refuses
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar
to give certificate
V/s Kailash Kushanrao ● Stage at which the certificate can be filed
Gorantyal and Others ● It was further held that till the hearing in a trial is not
Hon’ble Supreme Court complete, the requisite certificate can be directed to be
14th July 2020 produced by the learned Judge at any stage, so that
information contained in electronic record can then be
admitted and relied upon in evidence
 Directions issued by Supreme Court to cellular and internet
service providers
The Supreme Court also directed that appropriate rules and
directions should be framed in exercise of the Information
Overruled Shafi Technology Act, 2000 by exercising powers such as in Section
Mohammad, upheld 67C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and also framing
suitable rules for the retention of data involved in trial of
Kundan Singh , offences, their segregation, rules of chain of custody, stamping
Modified Anvar P V and record maintenance, for the entire duration of trials and
Ankur Chawla appeals, and also in regard to preservation of the meta data to
avoid corruption. Likewise, appropriate rules for preservation,
retrieval and production of electronic record, should be framed.
Section 67(C) (2) provides Punishment up to three years
imprisonment
 The Supreme Court through this judgement in the case of
Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar has brought abundant clarity on the
conflicting views and practical applicability of the mandatory
requirement of certification under Section 65B(4) of the
Evidence Act for establishing the admissibility of an electronic

Outcome of evidence which had become a mere formality in certain

circumstances.
this Judgment Notably, looking at it from a practical standpoint, the much
needed clarification provided by the Supreme Court on the
options available to the party who cannot obtain the certificate
under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act will certainly help
parties circumvent objections on the admissibility of electronic
evidence
  Coming to the issue as to the stage of production of
the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act is
concerned, this Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar’s
case (supra) held that the certificate under 65-B of
State of Karnataka the Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is
vs.T. Naseer¯ @ Nasir @ not over.
Thandiantavida Naseer @
Umarhazi @ Hazi & Ors.  Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it
2023 (14) SCR 230 should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the
Date of Decision : 06-11- object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no
2023 innocent should be punished. A certificate under
Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be
produced by the prosecution is not an evidence
which has been created now. It is meeting the
requirement of law to prove a report on record.
  The electronic evidence produced before the High
Court should have been in accordance with the
statute and should have complied with the
Ravinder Singh @Kaku Vs certification requirement, for it to be admissible in
State of Punjab the court of law. As rightly stated above, Oral
4th May 2022
Hon’ble Supreme Court evidence in the place of such certificate, as is the
Death Sentence Set aside case in the present matter, cannot possibly suffice
as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of
the law.
  Electronic records being more susceptible to
tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc.
without such safeguards, the whole trial based on
proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of
justice. It requires:-Integrity of the data: That is the
data as sent or recorded was intact and not
MODE OF tampered with.

PROOF Of  Integrity of the hardware/software: The hardware and

software used to reading, downloading, interpreting,
Electronic seeing or storing was functioning according to set
RECORDS standards and there was no deviation or its corruption.
 Security of the system: The system used to access such
electronic record was secured, and during the particular
course of period it was not accessed by any
unauthorized person, so as to rule out the possibility of
its tampering or malfunctioning.
  I-At the time of the creation of the electronic record, the
computer that produced it must have been in regular use
 II- The kind of information contained in the electronic record
must have been regularly and ordinarily fed in to the
computer
 III-The computer was operating properly and

Conditions of  IV-The duplicate copy must be a reproduction of the original

Section 63 electronic record
 conditions relate to veracity of the data. The conditions have a
two-fold impact as they
 i) ensure that there has been no unauthorised use of the data;
and
ii) the device was functioning properly, ensuring accuracy
and genuineness of the reproduced data.
  The purpose of the certificate is to satisfy the
conditions laid out by the preceding sub-section (2)
of Section 63 of the Evidence Act.
 The certificate is to be executed/signed by a person
occupying a responsible position in relation to the

Certificate of device through which the data has been produced.

Authenticity  The certificate must identify the electronic record

containing the statement, describe the manner in
which it was produced and also give such particulars
of any device involved in the production of the
electronic record as may be appropriate for the
purpose of showing that the electronic record was
produced by a computer.
  Call Records: In Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs.
State (Criminal Appeal No. 19/2007 decided on
27.08.2009), the High Court of Delhi while
appreciating the reliance placed by the prosecution
upon the call records, observed that ―computer
generated electronic records is evidence, admissible at
a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65B
of the Evidence Act.

Continue  Digital Camera Photograph: As per section 2(t) of

Information Technology Act, 2000, a photograph taken from a
digital camera is an electronic record and it can be proved as
per section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
 Proof of e-mail: E-mail is a computer output of electronic
record and therefore, it has to be proved in the manner
prescribed in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which
requires a certificate to be given by a person occupying
responsible position in management of the computer
  State of Karnataka
vs.
K.Yarappa Reddy
 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Refreshing  2000 Cr LJ 400
Memory even
during  20. P.W. 15 (Sub-Inspector) was asked during
examination-in-chief about what happened on 30-1-1982,
examination and he wanted to check up his records as he could not
Section 162 BSA remember without refreshing his memory. But then the
defence counsel seriously objected and wanted the Court
to disallow him from looking into such records. It is not
clear whether the said objection was upheld or whether
P.W. 15 was allowed to check up with the records of
investigation
21. Trial Court cannot overlook the reality that an Investigating Officer comes to the
Court for giving evidence after conducting investigation in many other cases also in
the meanwhile. Evidence giving process should not bog down to memory tests of
witnesses. An Investigating Officer must answer the questions in Court, as far as
possible, only with reference to what he had recorded during investigation. Such
records are the contemporaneous entries made by him and hence for refreshing his
memory it is always advisable that he looks into those records before answering any
question
  21. Trial Court cannot overlook the reality that an
Investigating Officer comes to the Court for giving
evidence after conducting investigation in many
other cases also in the meanwhile. Evidence giving
process should not bog down to memory tests of
witnesses. An Investigating Officer must answer the
questions in Court, as far as possible, only with
Continue reference to what he had recorded during
investigation. Such records are the
contemporaneous entries made by him and hence
for refreshing his memory it is always advisable that
he looks into those records before answering any
question
  If plurality of witnesses would have been the
legislative intent cases where the testimony of a
single witness only could be available, in number of
crimes offender would have gone unpunished. It is
Single Witness the quality of evidence of the single witness whose
2003 AIR(SC) 3590 testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of
Chittar Lal credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to
vs. be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict
State of Rajasthan the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not
the quantity of evidence which is necessary for
proving or disproving a fact. This position has been
settled by a series of decisions
  165. (1) A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is
in his possession or power, bring it to Court, notwithstanding any
objection which there may be to its production or to its
admissibility: Provided that the validity of any such objection shall
be decided on by the Court.
 (2) The Court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it
Communication refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to
between Ministers & determine on its admissibility.
C
Hon’ble President Of  (3) If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to
India be translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to
keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in
evidence and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be
held to have committed an offence under section 198 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:
 Provided that no Court shall require any communication between
the Ministers and the President of India to be produced before it.
 MY DETAIL

Thank you very

much PL ENLIGHTEN ME BY SENDING YOUR
VALUABLE INPUT
 My Mobile No 9650791666
 Mail id atulpp12@gmail.com
 atul.24a@gmail.com