‘Evidentiary Value of WhatsApp Messages’
In today's era of information technology the focus of country is
on digital India. Use of science and technology by criminals, in commission of
crime, is increasing day by day and to deal with such crime and criminals, it
is very important that the investigating agencies must be aware and trained
about such technologies. Collection of scientific evidence is important aspect
of crime investigation, police officers involved in collection of direct
evidence, are hardly trained in collection of scientific evidence. Another
issue is that there is neither specific guideline of court nor any specific law
to deal with scientific investigation. By the Information Technology Act, 2000
certain amendments were done in Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in regard to
admissibility of scientific evidence; however that is subject to some condition
laid down in the Act. During investigation investigating agencies collect a
number of scientific evidence like tape recorded conversation, mobile
communication, Facebook, WhatsApp messages, string operation, polygraph test,
DNA evidence and so on, however how much weightage shall be given to such
evidence is subject to controversy. The main thrust of this article is to
analyse WhatsApp messages as evidence and to find out how much evidentiary
value is given by courts to such messages. Whether such scientific evidence may
be concluded as a conclusive proof or not, needs to be analyised. Since there
is no specific guideline or test which determine the accuracy or scientific
validity of such evidence. Author will suggest some factors to be taken into
consideration while appreciating such evidence.
In regard to WhatsApp message problem is this that whatsApp
messages are not stored on server so once message has been send the receiver
may very easily edit the messages and if any controversy arise in future in
regard to content of message
and if it is not saved in the senders
mobile then it will be very difficult to prove what message
had been sent and receiver
may present edited
message very easily
because once WhatsApp message is delivered it is no more saved on sever
like general mobile messages.
In Rakesh Kumar Singla vs Union of India (CRM-M
no. 23220 of 2020) relying on WhatsApp chats
court granted the bail in an NDPS Act. Gujarat High Court in Chirag Deepak Bhai
Sulekha vs State of Gujarat (Criminal Misc. Application No. 18834 of 2020) granted bail on the basis of WhatsApp chats. In regard to forwarded message on WhatsApp
Delhi High Court in National lawyers campaign for judicial reforms and reforms
vs union of India (2019 SCC OnLine SC 411) held that forwarded message cannot be treated as evidence it
cannot be treated as 'document' under Indian Evidence Act without having
original of forwarded message. In Sri P.
padmanabh vs Syndicate Bank limited Karnataka (2008
AIR (Kar) 42) High Court held that if computer itself
was not in proper condition means it was malfunctioning then output or any information
received from such computer cannot be treated as an evidence and should not be
relied upon. On the basis of WhatsApp
chat Delhi High Court in Ritu vs state (2018 SCC online Delhi 12914) released the accused of rape. In the same
line students of Jindal global
University were punished for gang raping and blackmailing their juniors. The
onviction was based on WhatsApp chats admitted as evidence (Misc. No. 23 962 of
2017).
In case of Girwar Singh vs CBI ((2016) 5 RCR (Cri) 757) Court appointed committee to check the authenticity of electronic
evidence and the committee found that evidence was not the original one but the
copy of original one and the evidence was copied a number of time in different
devices ultimately Delhi High Court did not accepted such messages as evidence
in the case. Bombay High Court in SBI
cards installment and station private limited versus Rohit Jadhav (2018
SCC OnLine Bom 1262) held that if blue tick is
appeared then it will be considered that receiver has opened (and read) the
message. If message was notice then it will be presumed that notice was
served. It is important to note that
court did not consider the other situation in this scenario it is quite
possible that in the member of the family may have opened the message or it is
also quite was well that in general notice is not served through WhatsApp
because if Court is admitting such mode of notice then there must be a
provision in law for such mode of notice.
In recent months a number of media highlighted case has been
charge-sheeted on the basis of WhatsApp messages, whether it is TRP conspiracy
between republic editor in chief Arnab Goswami and (BARC) CEO partho Das Gupta
or whether it is case of North East Delhi by JNU students Sarjil imam and
pinjra Tod activist or it is Sushant Singh Rajput case.
So it can be concluded that for a admissibility of such messages
the device must be in good condition and must be in regular use again the
sender of such message must have an intention to send those messages then only
such messages can be treated as evidence.
Assistant Professor, JEMTEC School of Law
www.jimsgn.org
Sudhir Kumar Dwivedi
Assistant Professor, JEMTEC School of Law
Comments
Post a Comment