State of Karnataka vs T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi & Ors.
Background
The case arose from the 2008 serial bomb blasts in Bangalore that killed one woman and injured several others. During the trial, electronic devices seized from an accused were sent for forensic examination, and the resulting CFSL report was initially sought to be proved without a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act; when the accused objected and the trial court rejected the report, the prosecution promptly obtained a Section 65B certificate and applied under Section 311 CrPC to recall the forensic witness and place the certificate on record, but both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court refused, treating this as an unexplained six-year delay.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had proceeded on a wrong factual premise. There was no six-year delay, since the certificate was sought to be produced almost immediately after the report was first rejected for want of one, while the trial was still ongoing. Relying on its own precedents (Anvar P.V., Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, and M.R. Hiremath), the Court reiterated that a missing Section 65B certificate is a curable defect that can be produced at any stage before the trial concludes, and that allowing it here would cause no irreversible prejudice to the accused since they would still get a full opportunity to rebut it. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the orders below, and permitted the prosecution's Section 311 application so the trial could proceed with the certificate on record.
Lesson Learnt
A missing certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for electronic evidence is not a fatal, one-time-only requirement, as long as the trial has not concluded, courts should permit the prosecution (or defence) to cure this technical defect so that a case is decided on the truth of the evidence rather than lost on a procedural technicality.