SC in 2008 Bangalore serial blasts: Non-production of certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act is a curable defect, Read Judgment

The Supreme Court has held that a delay in producing a certificate under Section 65-B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in a criminal trial was not a valid reason to deny its admission as evidence. The Court emphasized that fair trial means upholding the truth and that permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate at a later stage would not cause irreversible prejudice to the case of the accused.

Facts of the Case:

In 2008, a series of bomb blasts occurred in Bangalore, leading to the loss of one life and injuries to several individuals. Multiple FIRs were filed at different police stations for various offences, including offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 123, 153A, 302, 307, 326, 337, 435, 506 & 201 of the IPC and Sections 3 to 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

During the investigation, various electronic devices, such as a laptop, hard drive, pen drives, CDs, SIM cards, and mobile phones, were seized. The original electronic devices were submitted before the Trial Court. A report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) which analyzed the contents of these electronic devices was obtained, but the Trial Court held that this report regarding the electronic devices was inadmissible in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act.

The prosecution then sought to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act and attempted to recall a prosecution witness to admit this certificate. The Trial Court rejected this application.

The appellant highlighted the gravity of serial bomb blasts in Bangalore and urged the Court to consider the application in light of the seriousness of the matter:

• The appellant argued that the prosecution's attempt to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was not about creating new evidence but rather about complying with legal requirements.
• The appellant argued that denying the prosecution the opportunity to produce the Section 65-B certificate would result in great injustice and cited the precedent in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) to support their claim that such a certificate can be provided at any stage of the legal proceedings.

The respondents argued that the prosecution's attempt to rectify evidentiary gaps through Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., citing a six-year delay, would be against respondents' right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court clarified that the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act is not necessary when electronic records are used as primary evidence. The Court held that "a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by the prosecution is not an evidence which has been created now. It is meeting the requirement of law to prove a report on record. By permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible prejudice to the accused. The accused will have full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution" The Court held that the certificate could be produced at any stage of the trial, provided it did not cause prejudice to the accused.

The Court reiterated the need to uphold the truth and the purpose of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to serve justice and the public interest. Based on this, the Court allowed the prosecution to produce the certificate and proceed with the case.

The Decision of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the delay in producing the Section 65-B certificate was not significant, and allowed the certificate's production as it would not result in any irreversible prejudice against the accused.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and permitted the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65-B.