Denying Authenticated Clone Copies Of Electronic Evidence To Accused Violates Right To Fair Trial Under Article 21: Rajasthan High Court
While allowing petitioner's application of getting cloned copy of the electronic evidence used by prosecution in a corruption case, Rajasthan High Court opined that furnishing of unrecognized copies or denial of authenticated copies not only violated petitioner's right to fair trial under Article 21 but also hampered his/he right to effectively invoke remedy of discharge.The bench of...
While allowing petitioner's application of getting cloned copy of the electronic evidence used by prosecution in a corruption case, Rajasthan High Court opined that furnishing of unrecognized copies or denial of authenticated copies not only violated petitioner's right to fair trial under Article 21 but also hampered his/he right to effectively invoke remedy of discharge.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu held that electronic evidence possessed inherent forensic attributes required for examining their integrity and authenticity, and the cloned copies with hash value of such evidence assumed significance since it was necessary to authenticate the chain of electronic record.
The Court was hearing a criminal petition by the petitioner who was accused under Prevention of Corruption Act, and had filed applications under Section 207(v) read with Section 173(5)(1) of CrPC and under Section 91, seeking cloned copy of electronic evidence relied upon by prosecution, as well as production of original recording device.
These application were rejected by the trial court, and hence criminal petition was filed challenging the order.
It was the case of the petitioner that he was provided with incomplete recording of the electronic evidence, and the CD was also not a cloned copy with a hash value. Further, no original digital voice recorded was produced by the prosecution.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Ors., in which it was held that the investigating officer had no option but to forward documents on which the prosecution relied upon along with police report.
Further, the Apex Court recognized the right of the accused to get cloned copies of the contents of the memory card and pen-drive as mandated by Section 207, CrPC, and also as part of right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Further reference was made to the coordinate bench decision of the Court in Ganpat Sharma v. State of Rajasthan which held that supply of an uncertified CD, not prepared through hash-value authentication did not fulfil the statutory mandate.
In this background, the Court made the observations mentioned above, and held that the petitioner was entitled to get the cloned copies of the original recording with hash value, relied upon by the prosecution, so that he may know the authenticity of the electronic record.
“…learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the significance of the electronic evidence and the settled legal principles governing its disclosure…The petitioner has not requested for any new documents, but has only asked for material which cannot be properly verified. If a document is not verified, the defence would not be able to use it at the appropriate stage.”
In relation to the request for calling of original voice recorder device, the Court held that the same could be decided during the course of trial.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the order of the trial court was set aside to the extent of refusing to supply the clone copy of the recording.
Title: Kishan Agarwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 99