Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with a trial court’s refusal to admit an electronic record under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in a criminal case alleging forgery of medical documents, holding that electronic evidence must be both relevant to the charges framed and capable of proper proof. Emphasising doctrinal discipline, the Court observed that evidence “which does not aid in proving the charges framed cannot be permitted to derail the trial.”
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an FIR lodged on 13 October 2021 against the respondent, alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for forging medical treatment records relating to the petitioner’s husband, who subsequently died during treatment. The prosecution case was that forged documents were prepared to conceal negligence and to extort money from the deceased’s family.
During trial proceedings, the petitioner moved an application under Section 65B of the Evidence Act seeking to bring on record a pen drive containing alleged voice recordings of the deceased, purportedly evidencing that no medical treatment was provided. By order dated 30 August 2024, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara rejected the application, prompting the petitioner to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court had mechanically dismissed the application without appreciating the relevance of the electronic evidence. It was argued that the voice recordings of the deceased, stored in the pen drive, directly related to the offences alleged in the FIR and demonstrated that no medical treatment had been provided, thereby exposing the falsity of the medical documents. According to the petitioner, the electronic record was crucial for a just and fair adjudication, as it supported the allegation that forged documents were prepared to mask negligence and extort money.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Opposing the petition, counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order was well-reasoned and legally sound. It was argued that no family member of the deceased had mentioned any such telephonic conversations in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation. The application, filed after a delay of more than three years from the alleged incident, raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the electronic record. It was further contended that the proposed evidence pertained to alleged medical negligence, whereas the accused stood charged only with offences relating to forgery of documents.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court undertook a focused examination of relevance and admissibility. It noted that the central charge against the accused was confined to forgery of medical documents under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, and not medical negligence. The Court agreed with the trial court that the alleged voice recordings primarily sought to establish negligence in treatment, an issue outside the scope of the charges framed. Significantly, the Court highlighted the absence of any “accepted and definite evidence” to identify the voice of the deceased, observing that even if the pen drive were taken on record, “the prosecution would have no evidence to prove the said conversation.”
The Court also underscored the unexplained delay of three years and three months in producing the electronic record and the fact that no reference to such conversations appeared in contemporaneous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. These factors, taken together, led the Court to conclude that the trial court’s rejection of the application was neither arbitrary nor illegal.
The decision of the Court:
Dismissing the petition as devoid of merit, the High Court upheld the trial court’s order rejecting the application under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, reiterating that electronic evidence must be timely produced, properly identifiable, and directly relevant to the charges framed; evidence aimed at proving uncharged allegations cannot be permitted to expand the scope of a criminal trial.
