Documentary Evidence Questions and Answers

Answer: C

The item not stated is Qualification of an expert.

Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 requires a certificate to be submitted with the electronic record each time it is offered in evidence, signed by the person in charge of the computer or communication device and by an expert, in the form specified in the Schedule. The Schedule's form requires the hash value of the electronic record to be stated, so both of those points are part of the Section 63(4) scheme.

Neither the section nor the form lays down what qualifications the expert must have, which is why that item is the answer and 'None of the above' is wrong.

Answer: D

The statement that is not true is the one about State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu.

In Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Parliament attack case, the Supreme Court held that electronic records such as call records could be proved by secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act even without a Section 65B certificate, if their authenticity was otherwise established, for example through witnesses. It did not say they could be admitted as prima facie evidence without any authentication, so the statement misdescribes the case.

The other statements are accurate. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) held that Section 65B is a complete code and overruled Navjot Sandhu on this point, and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020), a three-judge bench, reaffirmed that the Section 65B(4) certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility.

Answer: D

The item that is not a document is Private papers.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 defines a document as any matter expressed or described on any substance by letters, figures or marks, or by any other means, intended to be used for recording that matter, including electronic and digital records. Its illustrations name writing, words printed, lithographed or photographed, a map or plan, an inscription on a metal plate or stone, and a caricature, among others.

Map, inscription and caricature are therefore expressly documents. 'Private papers' is not a category the definition or its illustrations use; the Adhiniyam classifies documents as public or private, which is a different matter.

Answer: C

The key is relevant only if the conversation between the two accused is recorded and proved at the trial.

Call detail records show only that two phone numbers were in contact at certain times, and not what was said. The first option overstates them: courts have treated such records as showing contact, which needs corroboration (the recovery, a recorded conversation or other links) before a charge of conspiracy can rest on it. Several High Court bail orders on NDPS cases hold that call records of contact with a co-accused do not by themselves prove conspiracy.

The second option is also wrong, because electronic records of this kind are admissible when proved in the manner section 65B of the Evidence Act requires.

Of the three, the keyed option is the closest to that position. I did not find a Supreme Court decision that states the rule in the words of the keyed option, and the word 'only' is strong, so treat it as the best of three weak options and not a settled statement of law.

Answer: D

The judgment is Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (printed 'Shafi Mohd.'), decided on 30 January 2018.

A two-judge bench held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is procedural and can be relaxed: a party who is not in possession or control of the device from which the electronic document was produced cannot be required to produce such a certificate.

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) had held the certificate mandatory for secondary electronic evidence, overruling Navjot Sandhu (2005) on that point. Shafhi Mohammad's relaxation was itself later overruled by a three-judge bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020), which restored the Anvar rule, but in 2018, when this paper was set, Shafhi Mohammad was the case for the proposition asked.

Answer: C

Electronic records are admissible if their authenticity and integrity can be proven.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam treats electronic records as documents and provides that an electronic record shall not be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic. It is admitted on proof of its integrity and source, usually by the certificate required under section 63, which identifies the record and the device that produced it and confirms that it was produced in the ordinary course.

There is no requirement that electronic records be printed and signed or notarised, and they are certainly not inadmissible by nature; the Adhiniyam was drafted to make them easier, not harder, to use.

Answer: B

The contents of electronic records may be proved under Section 63.

Section 62 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63. Section 63 deals with the admissibility of electronic records, including computer output, and the certificate that must accompany them, replacing section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Section 61 declares that electronic or digital records shall not be denied admissibility merely because they are electronic, but it does not set the method of proof. Sections 65 and 66 deal with other matters.

Answer: C

The answer is Both of the above.

Section 63(4) of the BSA requires that a certificate accompany an electronic record offered in evidence, in the form set out in the Schedule. It must be signed by the person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (Part A) and by an expert (Part B).

Under the old Section 65B of the Evidence Act only one certificate was needed, but the BSA requires both, so A or B alone is incomplete.

Answer: A

The key's answer is that an electronic signature is considered reliable.

Section 3A of the Information Technology Act lets a subscriber authenticate an electronic record by an electronic signature or authentication technique which is considered reliable and may be specified in the Second Schedule.

Option B names the First Schedule, which is wrong, so 'Both' fails and option A, reliability, is the correct element.

Answer: B

They are treated as one single device.

Section 63(3) of the BSA provides that where, over a period, information was processed by a combination of computers or communication devices operating together, in succession or through intermediaries, all of them used for that purpose during the period are treated as constituting a single computer or communication device.

The law does not treat each device separately, nor pick out the most used one or the one in use at the time of the incident.