The following article has been submitted by Aaditya Kapoor, a law-aspiring student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies. Through his research, Aaditya strived to shed light on the importance and applicability of social media posts being treated as viable evidence in a court of law.

Introduction

As the world continues to plunge itself deeper and deeper into a marginally digital stratosphere, there’s a highly apparent state of transparency that remains building up constantly around all of its residents. The distinction between public and private grows thinner and thinner, based not just on personal preference, but also on the basis of external, and even lawful engagement. In-built GPS devices & online monetary transactions are regularly tracked and traced within the ambit of evidential data; with the evasion of such monitoring constituting a tort, even. India remains no exception to this gradual but steady uprising, especially now that it stands in the midst of a Prime Ministerial tenure that heavily relies upon striving to achieve, “Digital India.”

As far as maintaining transparency is concerned, the entire construct of Social Media has contributed to the phenomenon immensely ever since its advent. With a huge amount of citizens sculpturing their daily life into aesthetic presentations on public feeds via application-based websites such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, one might as well throw principles of personal privacy and self-containment out the window.  It is an obvious assertion at this point, that social media has transcribed itself into a platform that goes beyond fulfilling mere recreational purposes: and in extension of that notion, this article shall majorly focus on its impact on the Indian Law of Evidence.

How does data shared on Social Media constitute potential Electronic Evidence?

The information we put into social media accounts is indefinitely stored and available for future access, and therefore, it’s not far-fetched to see how something that starts off as a simple text exchange between friends can be transformed into e-Evidence within court proceedings. The addition of legal sanctions such as Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, have ascertained a certain amount of freedom to legal authorities for garnering information stored across social media platforms and consider them as evidence after ensuing due diligence to certain procedures established by law.  In a nutshell, our judiciary has come a long way from relying solely upon willful oral and written admissions that could be accounted for only after the opening of a particular court proceeding. Electronic evidence has enabled the courts to take reliable past records into account, as long as principles of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience are adhered to.

The evidence obtained from Social Media platforms is applied in a two-fold manner within litigation: The discovery and value of particular messages and social media “posts,” as well as the admissibility of such articles during the trial.

As far as the evidentiary value of social media posts is concerned, there are distinct advantages as well as suitable policy reasons attached to using social media evidence in criminal proceedings. There’s a ton of data being transacted into digital spheres of social media, and such data may even include imagery related to a crime in progress, or even one that has already been commissioned. The most recent example of the aforementioned would be the “Bois Locker Room” incident, wherein a large number of teenagers were exposed after promoting rape culture on an Instagram group that involved sharing pictures of minor girls without their consent. Screen-shots of their conversation on the group as well as on other social media platforms surfaced all over the internet and just that sufficed to launch a proper inquiry against all those recorded partaking in these vulgar & highly offensive discussions. The case is still heavily under investigation as more such records keep surfacing now that the issue, in general, has garnered a large amount of attention. In hindsight, the investigating agencies also discovered how some of the screenshots were, in fact, maliciously manoeuvred into placing false allegation on some of the accused. If anything, that only lays insight to how the scrutiny of potential electronic evidence is crucial, as, in comparison to oral and written admissions, it is fairly easier to stage evidence records on social media platforms.

Domestic events such as this are not the only object of interest when it comes to considering social media posts as suitable evidence. In 2016, there was a report of investigating agencies being in the process of targeting messages posted by individuals on various platforms of social media as evidence against those arrested for supporting terrorist groups. Even the United Nations has laid down guidelines wherein it liberates countries on usage of viable tactics in order to curb terrorist activities carried on over the Internet. However, as mentioned before, it is highly necessary to apply due diligence while exercising reliance upon social media-based evidence: which can be ensured by examining their admissibility in court.

The Supreme Court in 2018 had already voiced its clarification on Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which specifically deals with admissibility and applicability of electronic evidence within court proceedings. A bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit related how the provisions must be applied in a manner that ensures certification of such evidence by the person presenting it himself.

Section 22A of the Indian Evidence Act also relays a detailed account on the screening process involved in the admission of all online articles, messages and posts for their admissibility in court. Even in accordance with Common Law, it is necessary to remain ethical in conducting an investigation of social media articles before any litigation process can be commenced. For example, breaching privacy or adding someone as a friend on social media platforms, just for the sake of gaining private information is highly unethical and such conduct can even render any social media evidence obtained through it inadmissible.

However, the Apex Court also said that the applicability of requirement of certificate being produced, “can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies.”

An important case concerning the admissibility of social media posts in a court of law is Zimmerman v Wels Market Inc. The court recognized access to certain private content as relevant and crucial to the case, based on public information displayed on the plaintiff’s Facebook page and thereby ruled in favour of the defendants who were then granted access to non-public segments of the aforementioned social media handle.

Social Media Evidence: Boon or Bane?

In conclusion, it’s difficult to ascertain whether any information obtained through social media platforms should continue to play a vital role in constituting viable evidence within a criminal proceeding. However, based on recent occurrences, it can arbitrarily be said that if obtained through proper scrutiny, social media evidence can and should definitely be used to validate a person’s claim in court – and in that regard, their impact on Law of Evidence remains both uncertain and positive, but surely detrimental.

Latest Posts:

This post is written by Anushree Tadge, 3rd year law student of ILS Law College, Pune, she tries to explain briefly what a test identification parade is and how it makes a significant contribution in the criminal law system in India.

INTRODUCTION TO TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE

In Criminal trials, the most important step to follow as soon as the accused is arrested is confirming whether the accused is really the ‘accused’ as far as the crime scene is concerned. This test is extremely popular and is used as a means to examine the accuracy of the witness’s ability to identify the suspect amongst other unknown persons. Test identification parade is an effective tool in the investigation and with the correct procedure, it can be made admissible as evidence in the courts (corroborative evidence), the purpose is mainly to test and improve the credibility of existing substantial evidence in the case.

PROVISIONS AND ADMISSIBILITY

Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act allows identification of the accused by the process of Test Identification Parade as well as the proofs to be all admissible in the courtroom, now it has to be understood that this ‘test’ is not compulsory to be conducted, the section 54 (a) of The Code of Criminal Procedure grants the process to allow the suspected to be presented for a test identification parade.

Very interestingly, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India states that no person should be forced to be a witness against his own self, such principle is not violated with the test identification parade, this means that appearing for a test identification parade does not necessarily mean giving testimony in the Court of Law.

Such type of parade conducted for the purpose of identification in the investigation cannot be considered as substantial evidence it rather is taken up as corroborative evidence to support other facts and circumstances found in the case and used in the arguments to frame the ‘accused’

PROCEDURE AND PRECAUTIONS 

Procedures: Most importantly, the parade should be held as soon as possible, so that the victim or the witness doesn’t forget about the details essential for identification, as soon as the suspect is arrested the parade should be conducted. Delays are not taken positively in such cases by the courts of law. The magistrate should accompany the police when a test identification parade is carried on. The identifier should identify in both, the test identification parade as well as in the court. Also, the procedure should also take into account that the accused does not know the witness or victim before the commission of the crime, and the identifier must have observed the person for some time so as to identify him/her later on and in a sufficiently lit area.

Precautions: The police should make sure that they leave the place in order to the identifier identifying the person properly without haste, after making the required necessary arrangements, Except for the magistrate and identifier, they are allowed to be in place. For accuracy of results, a similar person to the accused must be made present along with the others and accused in a test identification parade ( Ratio minimum 1:5 and 1:10 ). Other witnesses are not allowed to be present during the process of one parade and are supposed to be kept far away from the identification parade. Also, precautions have to be taken that the accused changes positions after every witness identification takes place. 

WHETHER TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS NECESSARY OR NOT:

Test Identification is usually necessary when the disputes are concerned with that of the identity of the accused, in cases where the victim never saw the accused in his/her life before the incident. When the victim experiences the act of crime and can identify the accused, a test parade is to be conducted, usually, in such cases, victims can observe the criminal but identify him at a later stage. Even keeping this in mind, the parade should be held as soon as possible and that too with the presence of the magistrate.

Test identification is not required in cases where both witness and accused are acquainted with each other as they live nearby or even closer. Test identification is done to support the existing evidence and confirm the genuineness of the same.

Also, if any form of other evidence is brought to the Court’s attention which the court can safely rely on and in doing so no party will have the right to question or even initiate the parade then it will is not be considered as any substantial evidence and even if the test is not performed admissibility of evidence in court in court shall not be affected. 

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The credibility of this kind of test by the identifier with respect to the test identification parade, the credibility of such test vary from situation to situation and case to case. Many a times if the victim comes in a face to face contact may register a deep scar in the mind of the victim, they might remember the person and the act committed, place and even number of people involved. Factors like if the act was done during the day time? If it was in an open place, was there enough lighting for the identifier? All come into consideration…

In incidents where people covered their faces, the identification is not considered to be suitable as the identifier cannot identify the person, as well as in a situation where there lies a very huge difference in the commission of the act and the test to be conducted, it is generally the view of the court that it will further decide whether the parade should be held or not depending on facts and circumstances of the matter. 

CASE REFERENCE

In Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar, the landmark case, the court stressed upon how the holding of test identification parade was not mandatory. The judgement was delivered by Hon’ble Mr Justice N. V. Ramana and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar. On a regular night of 1999, around twelve people below 26 years committed the act of robbery into the house of Kamdeo Singh After the investigation started, many witnesses were found, although, during the test identification parade, no identification was done by the witnesses. The Court held that the identification test is conducted in a particular case only to help and support the investigation officer in a more accurate way. Now there is no provision mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code which paves way for the investigating agency to hold or give any right to the ‘accused’ to demand the parade by any chance. Any failure to hold the parade would not make the evidence to be inadmissible for identification in Court. 

IDENTIFICATION BY PHOTOGRAPH?

Section 22 of the TADA- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 states that: If a particular person is proclaimed to be the offender in any terrorist case, the evidence related to his identification by any witnesses on the basis of a photograph shall be as binding as the evidence of the parade.

IDENTIFICATION BY VOICE?

In the case of, Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, it was held that identification of the accused by his/her voice was reliable as prior to the happening of the incident, the witness has had some kind of acquaintance with the accused. 

CONCLUSION

Since the procedure of test identification parade in India is already a sidetracked one and it does not even amount to substantive evidence, it’s an effect in the case proceedings is only as much as a ‘dot connector’. But it is strongly recommended to police officers that procedures regarding the parade and the specific course of any action to the investigating authorities must be clearly explained. The government should increase the number of features for more effectively conducting the test identification parade, places should be allotted, tinted windows, better interrogation, and facilities so that concerned persons can see what’s happening instead of only the magistrate, etc. For over a century now, test identification parades have been active in India, and they significantly contribute and help the investigation faster and solve the cases in a better and faster way.

Latest Posts


Archives


This article is written by Sharat Gopal, pursuing BA.LL.B from GGSIPU. This article discusses about “Burden Of Proof” and its application in the Indian Judicial system with case laws.   

Let us understand this with an illustration as B is booked for theft for stealing A’s gold chain. B denies this accusation and claims that he was attending his friend’s wedding, but for proving this in court, B must provide sufficient evidence to the court which proves that he was at the wedding. If B won’t provide sufficient evidence in court, B will be convicted for theft. This legal burden placed on B’s shoulder is known as “burden of proof”. Burden of proof is more of the time on the person who brings the claim in the dispute. “ necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit”  is a legal maximum which states that the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.

EVIDENCE

Evidences are the major factor that decides the faith of a case. Cases are won and lost on the bases of evidences provided. Law of Evidence is an important piece in the court proceedings, as on the basis of evidences, cases are decided. Judgments of cases are totally depended on the evidence provided in court.

The term “Evidence” is defined in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.  It states that “Evidence” means and includes:

  • All the statements that are permitted in court or statements which are required to be made by the witnesses, in relation to the matter of fact which is under enquiry. These statements are called oral evidences.
  • All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court. These are called documentary evidences.

This is the definition of evidence explained under section 3 of the Act. It states that there are 2 types of evidence, oral and documentary evidences. These 2 types of evidence must be produced before the court for proving or disproving their arguments. The court analysis these evidences for giving a fair and just judgement.

BURDEN OF PROOF

“Burden of proof”, in simple terms means the duty places on one to prove or disprove a fact which is in question. As it is explained in the above example, where B had the burden to prove that he was at his friend’s wedding when the theft happened. In criminal cases, it is normally the prosecution who has the burden of proof, but in some cases it is shifted to the defendant as in the explained example, to prove his innocence. In civil cases, the burden is usually on the plaintiff to prove the claim, but in some, in some cases, it shifts to the defendant.  

Burden of proof works on 2 principles, “Onus Probandi” and “Factum Probans”.  “Onus Probandi”, in simple terms means the obligation of a party to provide sufficient proof for their position in a dispute. “Factum Probans”, means a fact or a statement of facts which are offered in as evidence as proof of another fact.

“Onus” is the liability and burden which can shift between parties in different circumstances.

Sections in the Indian Evidence Act covering the concept of Burden of proof-

  • Section 101- it states that any person who wants the judgement to be given in his favour for any legal right or liability, on basis of the facts he provides, he must prove that those facts exist.  When the person is bound to prove the facts that he provided in court, it is known as the burden of proof.

In the case of Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab [AIR 1996 SC 755], it was held that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has the responsibility to prove the crime committed by the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It can’t depend on the evidence brought by the accused for defence. The prosecution cannot rely on the evidence brought by the accused, and it must have its own evidences.

  • Section 102- This section talks about the person on whom the burden of proof will lay.

It states that the burden of proof will lay on the person who will lose if no proof or evidence is provided in the dispute. Eg, A and B were in contract with each other. B goes to court demanding that, A had obtained B’s consent by fraud. Here B will have the burden to prove the fact that, A fraudulently took B’s consent. If B will not prove this fact, the B will lose the case.

In the case of Dinabandhu Mondal v. Laxmi Rani Mondal [AIR 2019 Cal 232], the high court held that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support their charge and the burden of proof was on the side which will fail in evidence is not provided. The court also said that the respondents had imposed the allegations of fraud against the appellants, hence the burden of proof was on them to prove them negative.

  • Section 103- this section on Burden as to a fact. It states that the burden of proof of any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence until it is provided by any law that proof of fact shall only lie on any particular person.

In the case of Kovvuri Venkata Rama Reddy Vs Mandru Ganga Raju [Criminal Revision Case No.704 of 2018], the Andhra High Court held that the plea of alibi is concerned; the burden heavily rests on the accused to prove it.  

  • Section 104- This section talks about the burden of proving a fact so that the evidence provided can be admissible in court. Eg, A wishes to prove the dying declaration of his father. In order to prove this, first A must prove the death of his father.
  • Section 105-this section talks about the burden of proof in cases where accused comes with exceptions. According to this section, a person is accused of any offence and there are general exceptions in the case, then it is the burden of the accused to prove those exceptions. The court shall presume that there are no such exceptions present until the accused proves that there are exceptions. Eg, A did a murder, but he was unsound minded at the time for the crime. The burden of proof here lies on A.
  • Section 106-this section talks about the burden of proving facts which are especially within knowledge. If any fact is especially within the knowledge of the person, the burden of proving that fact is on that person.

In the case of Eshwaraiah And Anr. vs State Of Karnataka (1994), a man and a women were found hiding under the bedroom of a person who died with grievous injuries. Here the burden of proof was on the woman and man that why were hiding there.

There are other sections too which talk about the burden of proof in specific cases like that in section 107 which talks about the burden of proving the death of a person who was alive within 30 years, section 108 talks about the burden of proving person alive who has not been heard for 7 years, section 114 A which states that if women assert that it was non-consensual sex, then the court will honour the claims of the women, etc.

CONCLUSION

The burden of proof simply states that whoever has to make a claim before the court must have sufficient proof to prove it for having the judgement in their favour. For making claims, a person must have sufficient evidence to prove the facts in his favour. And this duty is passed to both the parties as the circumstances are. It strengths the judicial system of our country as it lay down general rules that must be followed by all while bringing a matter to court. This helps to provide justice and equality while giving judgements on the cases.

Latest Posts