Case: Rajesh Mishra @ Mitra Vs. The State of Goa, Through Police Inspector

P.K.Basheer and others (cited supra) held in paras 13 and 14 of the judgment thus:13 - Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub- Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65 (B) (2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act:(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65 B (2) of the Evidence Act; and(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.23. There is no compliance of Section 65 B (4) of the Evidence Act as above and, therefore, this circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution.24. As far as the injuries on the person of the appellant is concerned, the relevant evidence is found in the testimonies of PW 6 Vinay Miniz, PW 12 Harankumar Das, PW 19 Dr. Oscar Lourence and PW 42 Bishamber Singh. PW 12 Harankumar Das, PW 6 Vinay Miniz and PW 12 Bishamber Singh are the employees of Cipla Company.25. According to Vinay Miniz PW 6, the appellant had offered him job in Cipla Company. On 18.1.2011 when he joined the duties in the second shift, the appellant as a Supervisor put him inside the Company at about 2.45 p.m. He did not notice anything on his hands, however, while leaving the Company at 11.00 p.m. When he met the appellant and noticed bandage on his right hand thumb. Similarly, PW 12 also testified that he noticed bandage on right thumb of the appellant on 18.1.2011 at 10.30 p.m. when Harankumar Das PW 12 asked the appellant as to what had happened upon which the appellant is said to have informed him that he had met with an accident. Merely because there was a bandage on the right hand thumb of the appellant noticed by these witnesses would not ifso facto mean that while assaulting the deceased he sustained injuries. It is significant to note that PW 19 Dr. Oxcar Lourence who examined the appellant on 20.1.2011 deposed that the appellant had a wound on his thumb. The injury certificate issued by the doctor is at Ex.63.When the doctor was cross-examined, he gave material admissions that the accused were examined by him in the casualty in the presence of policemen and that all of them were tied with ropes. The doctor further admits that he did not record the age and dimension in the injury certificate nor mentioned anything about the cause of injuries. He unequivocally admits that the injuries on the person of the appellant could have been caused due to a fall. He also admits that usually incised would is caused due to a knife, however, no incise wound was noticed on the person of the appellant. This totally negates the prosecution case and also the circumstance that the appellant had sustained injuries while eliminating the deceased at the relevant time with a knife.26. We are unable to concur with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the circumstances, relied upon are individually proved and even assuming to be proved, are sufficient to return a finding of guilt of the appellant. The circumstances on the basis of which the learned trial Judge has returned his finding are not in consonance with the evidence on record. It, therefore, follows that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving the complicity of the appellant in the murder of deceased Rupesh. As such, after having closely scrutinized the evidence on record, it is apparent that none of the aforesaid circumstances if taken together, would show that the appellant was involved in the crime. None of the circumstances are consistent and conclusive in nature since there are many fragments in the chain.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]25. According to Vinay Miniz PW 6, the appellant had offered him job in Cipla Company. On 18.1.2011 when he joined the duties in the second shift, the appellant as a Supervisor put him inside the Company at about 2.45 p.m. He did not notice anything on his hands, however, while leaving the Company at 11.00 p.m. When he met the appellant and noticed bandage on his right hand thumb. Similarly, PW 12 also testified that he noticed bandage on right thumb of the appellant on 18.1.2011 at 10.30 p.m. when Harankumar Das PW 12 asked the appellant as to what had happened upon which the appellant is said to have informed him that he had met with an accident. Merely because there was a bandage on the right hand thumb of the appellant noticed by these witnesses would not ifso facto mean that while assaulting the deceased he sustained injuries. It is significant to note that PW 19 Dr. Oxcar Lourence who examined the appellant on 20.1.2011 deposed that the appellant had a wound on his thumb. The injury certificate issued by the doctor is at Ex.63.When the doctor washe gave material admissions that the accused were examined by him in the casualty in the presence of policemen and that all of them were tied with ropes. The doctor further admits that he did not record the age and dimension in the injury certificate nor mentioned anything about the cause of injuries. He unequivocally admits that the injuries on the person of the appellant could have been caused due to a fall. He also admits that usually incised would is caused due to a knife, however, no incise wound was noticed on the person of the appellant. This totally negates the prosecution case and also the circumstance that the appellant had sustained injuries while eliminating the deceased at the relevant time with a knife.26. We are unable to concur with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the circumstances, relied upon are individually proved and even assuming to be proved, are sufficient to return a finding of guilt of the appellant. The circumstances on the basis of which the learned trial Judge has returned his finding are not in consonance with the evidence on record. It, therefore, follows that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving the complicity of the appellant in the murder of deceased Rupesh. As such, after having closely scrutinized the evidence on record, it is apparent that none of the aforesaid circumstances if taken together, would show that the appellant was involved in the crime. None of the circumstances are consistent and conclusive in nature since there are many fragments in the chain.