The Supreme Court interpreted IEA Sections 22A, 45A, 59, 65A, and 65B, 1872 and ruled that secondary data contained in CD/DVD/pen drives are not permitted without a certificate under IEA Section 65B(4),1872.[22] It was clarified that electronic evidence without a certificate under section 65B cannot be proved by oral testimony and that expert opinion u/s 45A of IEA, 1872 cannot be used to make such electronic evidence admissible. It has also been held under U.S. law that when electronically stored information is presented as evidence, the following tests must be confirmed to be admissible:[23] The Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that computer-generated electronic records are admissible as evidence in a trial if they are proven in the manner set out in Section 65B of the IEA. 1872. The Court stressed that CCTV footage was the best evidence in this case and that the non-admission of the images at trial stage was erroneous.[54] The Delhi High Court further stated that CCTV footage is recorded directly through such broadcasts on a hard drive. This proof is primary, that is, the hard drive. According to Article 60 of the IEA of 1872, when the CCTV clip is broadcast, the court witnesses the crime even if it was committed in time.[55] However, it has undergone integrity checks based on expert testimony, but this leads to the assumption that CCTV footage produced directly on the hard drive on which it is programmed to store it constitutes primary evidence through proper numbering and serialization, and does not require a Section 65B certificate. A mobile phone has also been classified as a computer under the Information Technology Act 2000.[56] Therefore, printed matter or documents created in this way by this computer are in all cases also “electronic records”. The use of electronic media for all purposes, legal and illegal, has increased exponentially over the past decade. The situation is such that all legal disputes in today`s world involve an electronic data element. In many cases, electronic evidence is the best evidence available.
Therefore, it is essential that this evidence be properly examined to make it reliable in court. In addition, electronic evidence is naturally very volatile. This makes its authenticity highly questionable, as a lot of time elapses between discovery and submission to court, often making it difficult to bring specific charges against defendants that would otherwise be easy. The most important law covering all types of evidence in India is the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as IEA, 1872). Following the introduction of the Information Technology Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Information Technology Act 2000), the definition of “evidence” was also amended to include: “All documents, including electronic records, prepared for inspection by the court”[7] are also evidence within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, to understand electronic evidence, it is necessary to refer to the definition of “electronic documents”, “data, recordings or data generated, images or sounds stored, received or transmitted in electronic film or computer-generated microfiche”[8] are electronic documents. Whether it`s browsing and generating location logs with Google-enabled devices, making phone calls, or generating call records, every human activity today generates an electronic record, whether you know it or not. Smartphones, fitness bands, smartwatches, and so many other devices live so close to our daily lives that they know far more about our secrets than anyone else.
As the amount of this electronic data increases, more and more cases rely on electronic evidence. In the Middle Ages, the strongest legal evidence was the oral testimony of honorable citizens, and responsibility was socially constructed and applied collectively, but this is no longer the case. [1] The modern legal system has taken years to accept paper records as primary evidence, and now electronic records pose greater challenges. [2] At the time of the conception of electronic documents as global evidence, the idea was that electronic documents would be very similar to paper documents only because the possibility of different media such as audio and video was not very promising. [3] This urgently requires a thorough review of Indian e-discovery law with respect to its admissibility and validity. There is no doubt that the nature of electronic evidence is highly volatile, which is why it is important to treat evidence and cases involving electronic evidence with great caution. The standard of proof for electronic evidence should be more precise and rigorous than other documentary evidence.[67] But the mere possibility of manipulation is no reason to ignore electronic evidence; It must be weighed against all odds.[68] .