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.