Search Results

Published by CyberLegals — Experts in Digital Evidence and IT-Law Consulting When lawyers, courts, and forensic experts deal with electronic evidence, even small procedural lapses can make a huge difference. A recent judgment by the Kerala High Court clarified a key principle under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act — that an electronic document must be produced in its entirety to be admissible, even when a 65B certificate is attached. 👉 Read the original case summary on LiveLaw . - WhatsApp in court --- 🔍 Summary of the Kerala High Court Judgment In Shinoj v. State of Kerala (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 654), the High Court ruled that: Merely producing a Section 65B certificate is not enough if only a part of an electronic record is submitted. The complete electronic document — whether chat, e-mail, or recording — must be produced to ensure the integrity of evidence. Redacted or partial versions are not considered admissible unless the full original record is available for verification. Sections 65A and 65B treat electronic records as “documents”, and their completeness and authenticity must be preserved. --- ⚖️ Why This Matters to Lawyers and Digital Evidence Consultants At CyberLegals, we specialize in technical-legal consulting for advocates and law firms dealing with IT evidence, digital forensics, and electronic records. This ruling highlights a few critical best practices: 1. Always Preserve the Complete Record Never rely only on screenshots or excerpts. Courts want full, unedited evidence to confirm context and integrity. 2. Certificate ≠ Completeness Even a valid 65B certificate does not replace the requirement of producing the entire digital file or communication trail. 3. Maintain Chain of Custody Track how evidence was obtained, stored, and transferred. Use hash verification and metadata logs to prove no tampering. 4. Mark, Don’t Redact Mark relevant portions for emphasis but keep the entire document available for review. 5. Forensic Consistency Technical experts must extract and document data in a manner consistent with Section 65B — ensuring the final record matches the one referenced in the certificate. --- 🧩 How CyberLegals Helps Law Firms and Advocates CyberLegals provides specialized consulting to bridge the gap between law and technology. Our services include: Digital Evidence Audit & Preservation – Designing defensible workflows to collect and preserve digital evidence. Forensic Extraction & Chain-of-Custody Documentation – Ensuring full, verifiable copies of electronic records. Section 65B Compliance Review – Helping legal teams prepare certificates and supporting documentation properly. Training Sessions for Lawyers – Workshops on interpreting IT evidence, Section 65B compliance, and courtroom presentation. When you work with CyberLegals, you ensure your digital evidence is complete, authentic, and admissible under Indian law. --- 🧠 Key Takeaways from the Kerala High Court Decision Always keep complete electronic records — not only fragments. Ensure the 65B certificate matches the data actually presented. Maintain transparency in how digital evidence is collected, stored, and shared. Collaborate with experts like CyberLegals for a technical-legal review before filing evidence in court. --- 📞 Contact CyberLegals If you are an advocate, in-house counsel, or legal consultant dealing with electronic evidence, CyberLegals can help. 📧 Email: info@cyberlegals.com 🌐 Visit: www.cyberlegals.com

Summary : An advocate for a Delhi builder cited a fabricated case created by ChatGPT as supporting authority in court. The false citation was exposed, highlighting risks of uncritically using generative AI for legal research. Below is a practical, SEO-friendly guide for Indian advocates on where AI helps, where it harms, and how to safely use it for electronic evidence and submissions. #AI Usage in Court of Law The incident (concise) An advocate relied on a case citation and record generated by ChatGPT; the cited judgment did not exist. The fabrication was detected, undermining the advocate’s credibility and raising ethical and evidentiary concerns about AI-generated legal content. Why this matters for advocates Credibility risk:  Courts treat fabricated authority seriously; relying on AI without verification can lead to sanctions. Evidentiary risk:  AI can invent judgments, dates, or citations that aren’t in any law reporter or database. Ethical risk:  Duty of competence and candour to the court requires verification of authorities cited. Where AI is useful (recommended) Summarising judgments  — Use AI to produce quick summaries of real, verified cases you have already checked. Drafting templates and boilerplate  — For pleadings, notices, or checklists that you will edit and verify. Research direction  — Use AI to suggest search terms, likely relevant statutes, or case names — then confirm with authoritative databases (SCC, Manupatra, Indian Kanoon, Judgments.gov.in ). Workflow automation  — Transcription, note-taking, and extraction of key facts from verified documents. Client communication drafts  — Prepare plain-language explanations, subject to lawyer review. Where NOT to use AI (strict no) Generating or relying on  case citations, verbatim extracts, or legal authorities  without independent verification. Producing evidence, affidavits, or court records claimed as original sources. Submitting AI-generated content to court as factual or authoritative without human corroboration. Using AI to fabricate timelines, metadata, or chain-of-custody records. Practical checklist for safe AI use (for advocates) Verify every citation:  Cross-check case names, citations, and quotes in at least one authoritative database. Confirm primary sources:  Always obtain and attach primary judgments or legislation PDFs before filing. Label AI assistance:  Internally note sections drafted or researched with AI; do not misrepresent AI output as human-only work if required by court rules. Metadata diligence:  When dealing with digital evidence, preserve original files and forensic reports; do not rely on AI reconstructions of deleted or altered data. Maintain chain of custody:  Document each step with timestamps and verified exports from devices or cloud services. Use disclaimers in drafts:  Treat AI outputs as preliminary drafts — “for internal use; verify before filing.” Continuing legal education:  Train teams on AI limits and verification protocols. How to handle an AI-generated error if discovered Immediately verify the claim. Retract or correct filings as soon as possible and notify the court if necessary. Preserve all AI prompts/outputs and communications for transparency. Review internal processes and retrain staff to prevent recurrence.

#digital evidence challenges for lawyers, #Section 65B defense checklist #challenge digital forensic report court, #forensic evidence cross examination tips #digital evidence admissibility India Digital / Electronic evidence is now central to criminal and civil litigation, but forensic reports frequently contain mistakes, oversights, or procedural shortcuts that can undermine their reliability. Advocates who can spot these flaws and methodically challenge them — especially under rules like Section 65B (Indian Evidence Act) or equivalent admissibility frameworks elsewhere — gain a powerful edge. Below are the top five recurring weaknesses in digital evidence reports, clear step-by-step strategies to attack them in court, an anonymized case walkthrough, and a downloadable checklist your firm can use immediately. Why this matters (brief) Digital artifacts—hashes, metadata, logs, extracted files—are only as strong as the processes that produced them. Small procedural errors can create reasonable doubt about authenticity, integrity, and chain of custody. A focused, procedural challenge is often more persuasive to judges than speculative attacks. Top 5 common flaws — what to look for Incomplete or improperly documented hash verification Flaw: Missing hash values, inconsistent hashing algorithms across copies, or lack of end-to-end hashing (original device → forensic image → working copy). Why it matters: Hashes (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256) are the primary technical assurance that a copied image is bit-for-bit identical. If hashing is incomplete or mismatched, the defense can argue possible tampering or unintentional alteration. Weak or broken chain of custody documentation Flaw: Vague custody logs, missing timestamps, unexplained gaps in possession, or multiple agents signing without role clarity. Why it matters: Chain of custody establishes who had access and whether evidence could have been altered. Gaps equal reasonable possibility of contamination. Metadata manipulation or lack of metadata preservation Flaw: Failure to preserve or record original timestamps, modification metadata overwritten during processing, or no explanation of time zone normalization. Why it matters: Metadata provides context (when, where, by which application). Tampered or unaccounted-for metadata undermines event timelines and authorship claims. Unsupported tool use and lack of validation Flaw: Use of proprietary or outdated tools without documented validation, or failure to note tool versions and settings. Why it matters: Tools have bugs and assumptions; without validation or versioning, an expert's findings may be based on flawed processing. Improper acquisition methodology (live vs. dead imaging, volatile data ignored) Flaw: Reliance on a simple file copy rather than a forensically sound disk image; failure to capture volatile data (RAM, active network connections) when necessary. Why it matters: Improper acquisition can miss critical evidence or introduce artifacts. The prosecution’s timeline or theory may rest on incomplete capture. Step-by-step strategy to challenge each flaw (court-ready) Below are concise steps you can raise at hearing, cross-examination, or via expert affidavit. Hash verification failures Ask for the full hash report and chain of hash values (original device, forensic image, working copy). Cross-check reported algorithms against court exhibit labels (e.g., exhibits labeled SHA-256 but reported as MD5). If hashes are missing or inconsistent, argue the evidence lacks proof of integrity; move to exclude or at least mitigate probative weight. Consider running your own hashing of the submitted exhibit in court (if permitted) to demonstrate discrepancy. Chain of custody gaps Request all custody logs, warrant returns, transfer receipts, and personnel IDs for each transfer. Identify unexplained time gaps or unrecorded handlers; use leading cross-examination to highlight opportunities for tampering. Argue exclusion under rules allowing suppression of evidence obtained or handled in ways that risk contamination (or seek limiting instructions). Metadata issues Ask for export of original file system metadata and forensically preserved copies showing original timestamps. Request explanations for any normalization or timezone adjustments. If none, show how timestamps could be misinterpreted. Retain an expert to analyze whether metadata could have been altered by common software operations; use this to cast doubt on timeline claims. Tool validation and versioning Demand disclosure of the exact tool name, version, configuration, and script logs. Ask whether the tool is peer-reviewed or validated against test corpora; if not, emphasize risk of false positives/negatives. Present (or call) a validation expert to demonstrate known tool bugs or version vulnerabilities that could affect results. Improper acquisition Obtain the acquisition report, including imaging commands, device identifiers (serials), and whether write-blockers were used. If only a file copy exists, cross-examine that it does not preserve deleted file remnants, slack space, or partition data — thereby showing incomplete capture. If volatile data was relevant (e.g., active chats, ephemeral keys) and not captured, argue the report is materially incomplete and unreliable for particular inferences. How Section 65B (India) affects your approach — practical pointers Section 65B requires a certificate when admitting electronic records; ensure the certificate is attached and signed by a responsible person. Scrutinize the certificate’s content: does it identify the device, describe the process, state that the computer produced the record in ordinary course, and specify the time of the operation? Challenge certificates that are conclusory, missing, or prepared by the same person who performed the analysis without appropriate institutional independence. If certificate technicalities are defective, argue non-compliance with Section 65B and seek exclusion — or at minimum, demand corroborative evidence or viva voce proof of authenticity. Cross-examination script fragments (concise, punchy) “Doctor, please confirm you used [tool name, version] to image the device. Where is the tool’s output log?” “Was a write-blocker used? Can you show the seal/tamper-evidence record for that device?” “Who had access to the device between seizure and imaging? Please identify every person by name and time.” “Why are the hash values missing from your report? If they were generated, why weren’t they attached?” “Did you ever alter timestamps during your analysis? If so, show the original preserved records.” Anonymized real-case walkthrough (short, illustrative) Case facts (anonymized): In a fraud prosecution, the prosecution’s forensic report claimed a user sent incriminating emails. The report relied on a forensic image of a seized laptop; the certificate under Section 65B was provided. Defense counsel found three red flags: (1) the report listed SHA-256 hashes in the body but only MD5 values were attached; (2) the chain-of-custody log had a 16-hour gap overnight with no signer; (3) metadata timestamps in the report had been normalized to a timezone not specified in the certificate. Defense strategy and result: The defense filed an application demanding the original hash logs and custody receipts, and obtained the imaging workstation logs via subpoena. A retained forensic expert demonstrated that the attached MD5 values did not match the hash values generated by the imaging workstation at the time of seizure, establishing inconsistency. Cross-examination exposed the overnight gap and elicited that an unrecorded lab technician briefly accessed the evidence for routine checks. The court found the Section 65B certificate incomplete (no description of timezone normalization, no explicit statement that the copy was made in the ordinary course). Given the cumulative procedural weaknesses, the judge ruled the emails could not be admitted under Section 65B and required viva voce proof of authenticity; ultimately the prosecution’s key timeline claim lost probative force and charges related to the email content were dropped. Lesson: multiple small procedural lapses combine to create reasonable doubt; remedy is thorough documentary excavation and targeted expert rebuttal.

"Discover the legal landscape surrounding WhatsApp chats as admissible evidence in court, and navigate their role in legal proceedings effectively." whatsapp chats as evidence in court, legality of whatsapp chats, admissibility of whatsapp chats in court, using whatsapp chats as evidence in court, whatsapp chat transcripts as evidence, whatsapp chat screenshots as evidence, whatsapp chat metadata as evidence, whatsapp chat legal implications, whatsapp chat privacy laws, whatsapp chat admissibility laws "Technology has become an integral part of our daily lives, and with that, the use of internet-based services in committing crimes has also increased. In this blog post, we will discuss the admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence in a court of law." "WhatsApp has become a ubiquitous part of our lives, and with that, it has also become a tool for criminals. In this blog post, we will discuss the admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence in a court of law." "The admissibility of WhatsApp chats as evidence in a court of law is a complex issue. In this blog post, we will discuss the legal principles that govern the admissibility of WhatsApp chats, and we will provide some tips for businesses and individuals who are considering using WhatsApp for communication." Important Definitions Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines an electronic record as data, record, or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or microfilm or computer-generated microfiche. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines evidence as all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court. All such documents are considered as documentary evidence. In this context, it's evident that electronic records submitted to the court hold the status of documentary evidence. To be admissible, electronic records must remain unaltered and free from tampering. This requirement is detailed in Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which outlines the conditions specified in Section 65B. In summary, Section 65B can be distilled into the following key points: The evidence should be stored on a computer that is regularly used for storage purposes and accessed by a lawful possessor of the computer. The content of the evidence must be input during the computer's routine operations or regular activities. The computer must be fully operational and in good condition. If not, it must be provable in court that the evidence remains untampered and presentable. The evidence must be presented in court in its original form as extracted during the regular course of the system's operation. Can WhatsApp Chats Be Used as Primary Evidence in Court? In the case of Girwar Singh v. CBI, the Delhi High Court held that electronic evidence that has been copied multiple times in various devices is inadmissible in court. This is because such evidence is considered to be secondary evidence, which is less reliable than primary evidence. Primary evidence is the original document or recording, while secondary evidence is a copy of the original. WhatsApp chats are typically considered to be secondary evidence, as they are a copy of the original messages. However, there are some cases where WhatsApp chats may be considered as primary evidence. For example, if the original messages have been destroyed or lost, then the WhatsApp chats may be the only available evidence. Ultimately, whether WhatsApp chats will be considered as primary or secondary evidence will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. If you are considering using WhatsApp chats as evidence in court, it is important to consult with an attorney to discuss your options. Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Landmark Case The Supreme Court of India has clarified the admissibility of electronic evidence in a landmark case, Anvar v. P.K Baseer & Ors. The court held that the requirements given under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence. This means that any electronic evidence that is not produced in accordance with the requirements of Section 65B will be inadmissible in court. The court also clarified that Section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to secondary evidence in the form of electronic evidence. This means that the traditional rules of secondary evidence, such as the requirement for a 'satisfactory explanation' for the non-production of the original, do not apply to electronic evidence. The Supreme Court's decision in Anvar v. P.K Baseer is a major step forward in the admissibility of electronic evidence in India. The decision provides clarity and certainty on the law, and will help to ensure that electronic evidence is treated fairly and consistently in the courts. Supreme Court Relaxes Mandatory Requirements for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence The Supreme Court of India has relaxed the mandatory requirements for the admissibility of electronic evidence in the case of Shafi Mohammed v. State of HP. The court held that electronic evidence presented without a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be relied upon in certain cases. The court held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is a procedural requirement and not a substantive one. This means that the court can relax the requirement if it is satisfied that the interests of justice so require. The court gave the following reasons for relaxing the requirement of a certificate: In some cases, it may be impossible to obtain a certificate, such as when the electronic device that produced the electronic record is no longer available. Requiring a certificate can be a cumbersome and time-consuming process, which can delay the administration of justice. Relaxing the requirement of a certificate will not prejudice the rights of the accused, as the court can still assess the authenticity and reliability of the electronic evidence on a case-by-case basis. The Supreme Court's decision in Shafi Mohammed v. State of HP is a significant development in the law of electronic evidence in India. The decision makes it easier for parties to present electronic evidence in court, and will help to ensure that electronic evidence is treated fairly and consistently. In the matter of Vikas Garg & Others vs. State of Haryana (2017), the trial court utilized WhatsApp conversations to establish the guilt of the accused on charges of rape and other offenses. Subsequently, the Supreme Court halted the High Court's bail order, and as of the most recent available information, the Special Leave Petition remains pending before the honorable court. In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court rejected an appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1850. The bench took into consideration WhatsApp chats between the involved parties, which were admitted by the prosecutrix during cross-examination. The court concluded that the contents of the chats indicated the prosecutrix's voluntary and non-coerced consent to engage in a physical relationship. More recently, on January 6, 2020, the honorable Supreme Court granted an injunction under Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace, LLP Ltd. The court affirmed that WhatsApp messages, regarded as virtual communication, can be admitted as evidence. However, it was emphasized that the meaning and content of such virtual communication must be established through evidence presented during both direct examination and cross-examination in the course of the trial. Conclusion In recent years, we've noticed a common practice involving the submission of WhatsApp chats, as well as communications on various social media and instant messaging platforms, in the form of printed chat records. This approach effectively places WhatsApp chats outside the purview of Section 62, rendering them ineligible as primary evidence. However, the situation changes significantly when the mobile device containing the original WhatsApp conversation is presented in court. This could provide substantial grounds for considering them as primary evidence. Although the legal framework for electronic evidence is still relatively young, even two decades after the enactment of the Information Technology Act, 2000, we anticipate significant advancements in this area over the next five years.

Discover the Legality of Using Screenshots as Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Uncover the Facts! Indian Evidence Act, Admissible evidence, Legal use of screenshots, Indian legal system, Evidence in court, Digital evidence in India, Proof with screenshots, Indian judiciary, Courtroom evidence, Legal documentation with screenshots The Law of Evidence: A Hybrid of Substantive and Procedural Law The law of evidence is a hybrid of substantive and procedural law. Substantive law defines the rights and obligations of individuals, while procedural law governs how those rights and obligations are enforced. The law of evidence falls into neither category neatly, as it deals with both the rights of the parties to a case and the procedures for admitting and evaluating evidence. In its most basic sense, the law of evidence can be defined as the rules that govern the admissibility of evidence in court. Admissible evidence is evidence that is relevant to the case at hand and that is not too prejudicial to the defendant. The law of evidence also sets forth the standards for evaluating the weight of evidence, which is how much weight should be given to admissible evidence. The law of evidence is a complex and evolving field, and there are many different rules and principles that govern its application. However, the basic principles of the law of evidence are essential to ensuring that justice is served in the courtroom. Here are some specific examples of how the law of evidence can be used to establish or refute a claim: In a criminal case, the prosecution may use the law of evidence to introduce eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, or expert testimony to establish that the defendant committed the crime. In a civil case, the plaintiff may use the law of evidence to introduce documents, photographs, or other tangible evidence to support their claim. In a divorce case, the parties may use the law of evidence to introduce financial records, property ownership documents, or other evidence to support their claims for alimony or child support. The law of evidence is a critical part of the legal system, and it plays an important role in ensuring that justice is served. By understanding the basic principles of the law of evidence, you can better understand how the legal system works and how evidence is used to establish or refute claims. SECTION 3 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 Evidence Oral evidence: Statements made by witnesses in court about the facts of the case. Documentary evidence: Documents produced in court, such as contracts, emails, and photographs. Types of evidence Oral evidence: Also known as personal or primary evidence, it is the testimony of witnesses who saw or heard something relevant to the case. Documentary evidence: Also known as secondary evidence, it is any document that contains information relevant to the case, such as contracts, emails, and photographs. Material evidence: Also known as actual evidence, it is any physical object that is relevant to the case, such as a weapon, a piece of clothing, or a fingerprint. The role of documentary evidence in a trial Documentary evidence plays a significant role in a trial because it can provide concrete proof of the facts of the case. For example, a contract can prove that a certain agreement was made, or an email can prove that a certain communication took place. Documentary evidence can also be used to corroborate the testimony of witnesses. The admissibility of primary and secondary evidence The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 sets out the rules for determining whether primary or secondary evidence is admissible in court. Primary evidence is generally preferred to secondary evidence, but secondary evidence may be admissible if the primary evidence is unavailable. CONTEMPORARY TIMES The growing use of technology and the need for a new law on electronic evidence The twenty-first century has seen a rapid growth in the use of technology. Computers are now ubiquitous, and they are used for everything from communication to banking to shopping. This growth in the use of technology has also led to an increase in the amount of electronic evidence that is available. Electronic evidence is any information that is stored or transmitted in electronic form. This includes emails, text messages, social media posts, and even computer files. The increasing use of electronic evidence has created a need for a new law that specifically addresses the admissibility of this type of evidence in court. The Information Technology Act of 2000 The Information Technology Act of 2000 (IT Act) was passed by the Indian Parliament to address this need. The IT Act defines electronic evidence and sets out the rules for its admissibility in court. The IT Act also provides for the appointment of examiners of electronic evidence, who are experts in the field of computer forensics. The amendments to the Evidence Act of 1872 The IT Act also amended the Evidence Act of 1872, which is the primary law governing the admissibility of evidence in India. The amendments to the Evidence Act clarify the admissibility of electronic evidence and provide for the production of electronic evidence in court. The importance of electronic evidence Electronic evidence can be a valuable tool in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. It can also be used to resolve civil disputes. The IT Act and the amendments to the Evidence Act have made it easier to use electronic evidence in court, and this has helped to ensure that justice is served in the digital age. Amendments to the Indian Evidence Act for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was amended in 2000 to include provisions for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The amendments were made in response to the increasing use of electronic records in business and other transactions. One of the key amendments was the addition of Section 22A, which clarifies that oral evidence is only relevant to prove the contents of an electronic record if the authenticity of the record is in doubt. This amendment was made to address the concern that oral evidence could be easily fabricated or tampered with. Another important amendment was the addition of Section 45A, which provides for the appointment of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence. The Examiner of Electronic Evidence is a qualified person who can assist the court in evaluating the authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence. Finally, Section 65B was amended to set out the specific requirements for presenting electronic evidence in court. These requirements cover both the technical and non-technical aspects of electronic evidence, such as the format in which the evidence must be stored and the procedures for authenticating it. The amendments to the Indian Evidence Act have helped to ensure that electronic evidence is admissible in court and can be used to prove or disprove a case. This is important in today's digital age, where electronic records are often used in business and other transactions. CASE LAWS- Amar Singh v. Union of India The Supreme Court remarked that “the widespread notion in the Country is clearly depicted where all the parties, including the state and the telephone company, disputed the authenticity of the printed transcripts of the CDRs, as well as the authorization itself.” In examining the admissibility of electronic records in light of the decision rendered in the case of Navjot Sandhu, the Court made the following observations: N.C.T of Delhi vs. Navjot Singh Sandhu It appears that when addressing the admission of electronic records in that case, the court neglected to consider Sections 59 and 65A. Secondary evidence in the form of an electronic record is entirely governed by Sections 65A and 65B; Sections 63 and 65 do not apply in this situation. To that extent, the legal position set forth by this court in the Navjot Sandhu case on the admissibility of secondary evidence relative to electronic records is incorrect. It needs to be overruled, so we do that. The Apex Court relied on the maxim generalia specialibus nonderogant i.e., special law will always prevail over the general law. In the light of this maxim court attempted to provide certainty to the current statutes on the admissibility of electronic evidence through Anvar’s case, which have had little to no assurance for more than ten years. CONCLUSION When it comes time to appear in court for a case, we provide the judge with material known as evidence, and the judge will make the decision. If we do not have an attorney, we must properly acquire the pertinent material that will be used as evidence in court. The information we present influences how the judges arrive at their choices. The information cannot be rumour or conjecture. The court may use text messages, screenshots, or audio messages as proof or evidence. Because screenshots are a component of electronic evidence, they can be used in court as evidence in accordance with the Evidence Act. By submitting the screenshot as proof, the phone’s information and the time it was taken were also provided to the court. Reference: Indian Evidence Act,1872; Section 3 Indian Evidence Act, 1972; Section 62 Indian Evidence Act, Section 63 Shreya Singhal ‘Overview of Different Kinds of Evidence’ Indian Evidence Act,1872; Section 59 Indian Evidence Act, Section 22A Indian Evidence Act, Section 45 Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 69A Amar Singh v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69 NCT of Delhi v/s Navjot Sandhy @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600

Cracking the Code: A Legal Analysis of Admitting Electronic Evidence in Indian Courts Electronic evidence in India, Admissibility of electronic evidence, Indian evidence act, Electronic records as evidence, Digital evidence in Indian courts, Cyber forensics in court, Electronic Evidence in legal proceedings, Electronic evidence authentication, Electronic evidence admissibility rules, Digital signature and electronic evidence Introduction: The advent of computers and digitalization is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable achievements of mankind. In today's digital age, many governments have embraced digitalization as a means of streamlining their administration. In line with this trend, the Indian government has launched the "Digital India" campaign to encourage the use of digital technologies in our daily lives, a move that is expected to catalyze the development of the country. With the rapid proliferation of digitalization across governance, commerce, and business activities, electronic media has emerged as a critical tool for documentation, processing, and communication. The significant benefits of electronic media have added immense value to human life. The Indian judiciary has recognized and acknowledged electronic records as evidence, provided they comply with the provisions set out in the Indian Evidence Act. While electronic records undoubtedly offer unparalleled convenience, they also present unique problems and challenges when it comes to ensuring their proper authentication and accommodating the diverse viewpoints on the subject. With the rapid growth of the cyberspace, the threat of cybercrime has escalated, leading to significant concerns for investigating agencies and judiciaries, particularly with respect to the admissibility of electronic records. Given the higher likelihood of manipulation, electronic records can have a substantial impact on the outcome of civil, criminal, and other judicial proceedings during the trial phase. Therefore, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of electronic records, including their types, admissibility, evidentiary value, and role as evidence in legal proceedings. Evidence According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, evidence can be classified as either oral or documentary. Oral evidence comprises statements made by witnesses before a court of law, while documentary evidence refers to materials submitted for the court's inspection, including electronic records. Further examination reveals additional categories of evidence for use in legal proceedings. However, Evidence could be divided as follows: Oral, or Documentary; Primary, or Secondary. Primary and secondary evidence Primary evidence refers to the original electronic record itself, while secondary evidence includes certified copies or counterparts of documents that a party is unable to produce in court, as well as computer-generated outputs of the electronic record's contents, and statements from experts or individuals who have personally seen the document. The legal principle dictates that primary evidence takes precedence over secondary evidence if available, although it may be impractical to present primary evidence in court due to storage on hard disks, cloud, servers, and other electronic storage media. The Supreme Court has therefore allowed for secondary evidence to be admitted, such as printouts on paper or magnetic or optical media produced by an electronic device. However, secondary evidence is only admissible if it complies with the conditions set forth under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Electronic records as evidence Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act outlines the admissibility of secondary evidence in certain cases, while Section 65B sets out the procedure for proving the contents of electronic records as stipulated under this section. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act outlines the conditions for admitting electronic records as secondary evidence in court. According to this section, a printout of information from an electronic record on paper or a copy of the record on an optical or magnetic media can be considered as a secondary evidence document, provided it satisfies the requirements under Section 65B. The original source of the electronic record, such as the electronic device, can also be admitted without further proof in court proceedings. Essentially elements of the electronic evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act are as follows: Such produced information of electronic records should be produced by the person having legally authorized to have control over that electronic device. That storage of information must take place during the day to day general course of the act of that person. That stored information has been stored on that electronic device during the day to day general course of action of that person. While storing or copying of that material information, the said electronic device must be in a functioning state, to avoid any possible negative impact on its operation or distort the accuracy & authenticity of its material contents. Any kind of storage or copying or making counterpart of the information required for the production in the court of law as electronic evidence should be free from any kind of distortion or manual edit or manipulation, it must be the authentic and trustworthy information, which may get admitted as evidence in the court of law. Different types of electronic records Electronic records are defined by the Information Technology Act, 2008 and cover a wide range of data formats. These formats include DVD, CD, pen drives, telephonic recordings, hard drives, e-mails, pictures, video recordings, sound recordings, and others. Each format has unique conditions regarding its evidentiary value and admissibility in court proceedings. Evidence in the form of as DVD, CD, Hard-Drive, chip, Memory Chip, Pen Drive: The admissibility of electronic records can be as primary or secondary evidence, and their evidentiary value depends on the manner in which they are presented in court. If electronic records are produced in their original form, they hold more value in court. However, if a copy of the electronic record is submitted, certain conditions laid down in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act must be complied with, and a certificate must be obtained for its admissibility in court. Audio and Video Recordings: The electronic records are considered admissible if they are presented in their original form. For instance, the original audio or video recordings are a valid and trustworthy source of electronic evidence, whereas the copied version of these records on other similar or different devices must meet the conditions stated in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and obtain a certificate for their acceptance in court. Evidence generated through mobile phone in the form of media, calls and email: Emails are recognized as a legitimate and reliable source of evidence. Typically, emails are presented to the court in the form of printouts accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In modern times, mobile phones have become a vital electronic device that provides a plethora of resources to aid the judicial and investigating systems in gathering valuable evidence, such as location tracking, video and picture capturing, and call recording. The electronic records generated through mobile phones, such as media and calls, are admissible as evidence if they are submitted in their original form, i.e., the mobile device itself, which contains the primary source of the data. However, if a copy of the records is submitted on a different device, it must comply with the conditions precedent under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and obtain a certificate for its admissibility in court. Leading case laws Arjun Pandit Rao v. Kailash Kushanrao (July 2020) In a recent ruling, the Apex court has emphasized the importance of complying with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in order to admit electronic records as evidence. The certificate submitted under this provision should include details of the electronic record and the identity of the person responsible for managing and operating the relevant device, along with an authorized signature. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer And Others (2014) The Supreme Court has delivered a significant verdict in this matter, which has resolved the conflicting decisions of various high courts regarding the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in court. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that secondary data in CD/DVD/Pen Drive can only be admissible as evidence if accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. Oral evidence alone cannot establish the authenticity of electronic evidence, and a certificate under Section 65B is necessary to prove its validity. The Court also emphasized that the opinion of an expert under Section 45A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be used as a loophole to bypass the requirements set forth in Section 65B. One can prove electronic evidence as primary or secondary evidence only by producing the original or its copy or counterpart attached with a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Conclusion The admissibility and evidentiary value of electronic records must be determined under the provisions of U/s 65B Evidence Act. The Supreme Court has issued various landmark judgments clarifying the procedures for admitting electronic records as evidence and their significance in civil, criminal, and other legal proceedings. It is an established fact that any electronic evidence presented as secondary evidence must comply with the provision of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to be admissible in a court of law. Without a certificate, such evidence is generally not admissible. While electronic devices can play a crucial role in investigations, the value of electronic evidence is dependent on its compliance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. References Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Arjun Pandit Rao v. Kailash Kushanrao Civil Appeal No. 20825-20826 of 2017 – Judgment dated July 14, 2020 Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer And Others (2014 10 SCC 473)

Demystifying Cyber Law in India: What You Need to Know to Stay Safe Online Cyber Law in India, IT Act India, Data Protection Laws, Cyber Security India, Electronic Signature, Cyber Crime Investigation, Online Privacy, Digital Signatures, Cyber Forensics, Information Technology Act What are Cyber Laws in India ? ​ Cyber laws in India refer to the legal provisions, regulations, and policies that govern the use of computers, computer networks, and the internet. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): This is the primary cyber law in India, which was enacted to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out through electronic means and to facilitate e-commerce. It also deals with data protection, privacy, and cybersecurity. ​ The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008: This amended the IT Act to address issues related to cyber terrorism, data protection, and intermediary liability. ​ The Indian Penal Code (IPC): The IPC is the main criminal law in India, which also deals with cybercrimes such as hacking, identity theft, cyber stalking, and cyber terrorism. ​ The Copyright Act, 1957: This law provides protection for literary, artistic, and musical works in the digital environment. ​ The Patents Act, 1970: This law provides protection for inventions and encourages innovation in the technology sector. ​ The Trademarks Act, 1999: This law provides protection for distinctive signs, logos, and symbols used by companies and organizations. ​ The Right to Information Act, 2005: This law provides citizens with the right to access information held by public authorities. The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016: This law provides for the unique identification number (Aadhaar) and regulates its use in various government schemes. ​ The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019: This bill aims to provide protection for personal data and regulate its use by companies and organizations. ​ The National Cyber Security Policy, 2013: This policy provides a framework for securing India's cyberspace and creating a safe and secure cyber ecosystem. Violations of these cyber laws can result in penalties such as fines, imprisonment, and compensation to the victims of cybercrimes.

Is Your Digital Life at Risk? Uncovering the Reality of Cyber Crime Cybercrime, Online fraud, Cybersecurity, Data breach, Malware, Phishing, Identity theft, Cyber attacks, Ransomware, Social engineering What is Cyber Crime? Cybercrime is a type of criminal activity that involves the use of computers, networks, and the internet to commit unlawful acts. It includes a wide range of illegal activities such as hacking, identity theft, phishing, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, distribution of malware, denial-of-service attacks, and many others. Cybercrime poses a serious threat to individuals, businesses, and governments, and can cause significant financial, reputational, and personal harm. It is a rapidly growing problem as technology continues to advance and more people become connected to the internet. Types of Cyber Crime?​ Phishing : Its is a type of cyber attack where a scammer or cybercriminal sends fraudulent emails, messages or creates fake websites in order to trick individuals into providing sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, credit card details, or other personal information. These scams often appear to be from legitimate sources, such as a bank or other trusted organization, in order to deceive the victim into disclosing their confidential data. Phishing attacks typically involve social engineering techniques and are aimed at exploiting the victim's trust in order to gain access to their sensitive information. The ultimate goal of a phishing attack is to use the stolen information for financial gain, such as identity theft or unauthorized access to financial accounts. Example: A criminal sends an email that appears to be from a bank, asking the recipient to click on a link and provide their login credentials. Applicable Law: Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine ​ ​ Hacking: It refers to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a computer system or network. It involves using various techniques to exploit vulnerabilities in the system or network and gaining access to sensitive information, data, or control of the system. Hacking can be done for various reasons, including stealing data, causing damage to the system, disrupting services, or testing the security of the system. While some hackers may have benign intentions, others engage in hacking for malicious purposes, such as stealing personal information, financial fraud, or espionage Example: A hacker gains access to a company's database and steals sensitive customer information. Applicable Law: Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to Rs. 5 lakhs. ​ ​ Cyber Stalking: Its a type of online harassment where an individual uses the internet or other electronic means to repeatedly harass or threaten someone. This can include sending unwanted messages, emails, or social media posts, making threats, tracking someone's online activity, or engaging in other forms of unwanted contact. Example: Sending unwanted messages, following someone's online activity or spreading rumors and false information about them. Applicable Law: Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine ​ ​ Cyber Bullying: It refers to the use of technology, such as social media, emails, text messages, or other digital communication methods, to harass, intimidate, threaten, or humiliate someone. Cyberbullying can take many forms, such as spreading rumors or lies, sharing embarrassing or private information, creating fake profiles, or posting offensive or hurtful comments or images. Example: Posting derogatory comments, images or videos about someone online. Applicable Law: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to Rs. 2 lakhs. ​ ​ Cyber Defamation:It refers to the act of defaming or damaging someone's reputation through the use of digital communication channels, such as the internet, social media, or email. It involves publishing or posting false, defamatory, or derogatory statements about an individual or a company online, which can cause harm to their reputation and result in financial and emotional damages. Cyber defamation can take many forms, including libel, slander, and harassment, and can be committed through various means, such as posting offensive comments, uploading fake images, or creating fake social media profiles. Example: Posting false and malicious comments about someone on social media. Applicable Law: Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine ​ ​ Cyber terrorism: It refers to the use of technology, including the internet, to carry out terrorist activities that cause harm to people, property, or governments. Cyber terrorism can take many forms, such as hacking into computer systems, stealing data, spreading viruses, and launching attacks on critical infrastructure like power grids, transportation systems, and financial institutions. Example: Using social media or other digital channels to incite violence or promote extremist ideologies. Applicable Law: Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Life imprisonment ​ ​ Intellectual Property Theft: It refers to the unauthorized use, copying, or stealing of intellectual property, which includes inventions, artistic and literary works, symbols, designs, and trade secrets. This can occur in both physical and digital forms. Intellectual property theft includes counterfeiting, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and patent infringement. In the digital age, intellectual property theft often occurs through hacking and unauthorized access to computer systems and networks. It can also involve the use of malware and other malicious software to steal confidential information. Example: Copying and distributing copyrighted music or movies. Applicable Law: Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 63 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine ​ ​ Identity Theft : It is a type of cybercrime where a person's personal and sensitive information is stolen and used without their consent or knowledge to commit fraud or other criminal activities. The stolen information can include name, date of birth, social security number, bank account or credit card details, and other personally identifiable information. The stolen information is used to impersonate the victim and conduct fraudulent transactions, open bank accounts, take out loans or credit cards, and make unauthorized purchases. This type of theft can have serious consequences for the victim, including financial loss and damage to their credit score. Example: Using someone else's credit card information to make purchases online. Applicable Law: Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine ​ ​ Ransomware Attack: It is malicious cyber attack in which the attacker encrypts the victim's data and demands a ransom payment in exchange for the decryption key. The attacker typically threatens to delete or publicly release the victim's data if the ransom is not paid within a specified timeframe. Ransomware attacks can cause significant harm to individuals, businesses, and government organizations by disrupting normal operations and compromising sensitive data. In recent years, ransomware attacks have become more sophisticated, and attackers have increasingly targeted large organizations and critical infrastructure such as healthcare providers and government agencies. Some well-known examples of ransomware attacks include WannaCry, Petya, and Ryuk. Example: A hacker installs ransomware on a company's server and demands payment in exchange for access to the encrypted data. Applicable Law: Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine Cyber Espionage: It is the act of using cyberspace and technology to steal confidential or classified information from individuals, organizations, or governments. It involves unauthorized access to computer networks, systems, and devices in order to extract sensitive data or intelligence that can be used to gain an advantage or harm the target. Cyber espionage can be carried out by both state-sponsored actors and non-state actors such as cyber criminals, hackers, and other malicious entities. The stolen information can be used for a variety of purposes, including political, economic, military, or personal gain. Example: A foreign agent hacks into a government database to steal confidential information. Applicable Law: Section 66B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Punishment: Up to 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine