Summary
The Supreme Court permitted the prosecution to recall its forensic witness and produce a Section 65B certificate during the pending Bangalore bomb-blasts trial. The electronic devices and forensic report were already before the court, and the certificate was sought after an admissibility objection. The asserted six-year delay was misconceived. The omission was curable without irreversible prejudice because the accused retained a full opportunity to rebut the evidence.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution could produce a Section 65B certificate later during an unfinished trial.
- Whether recall under Section 311 would unfairly prejudice the accused or improperly fill a lacuna.
Provisions considered
- Sections 62 and 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court distinguished original electronic records from computer outputs, and permitted later certification to cure the asserted proof defect in the existing report. (¶ 8–14)
- Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Recall of the forensic witness and production of the certificate served a just decision while preserving the defence opportunity to rebut. (¶ 11–16)
Held
- An original electronic record produced as primary evidence is distinguished from copies or computer outputs requiring compliance with Section 65B. The devices here were already produced and marked as material objects. (¶¶ 8–9, 13–14)
- Non-production of the certificate earlier is curable. During an unfinished trial the court may allow later production, subject to a balancing exercise preserving a fair trial and avoiding serious or irreversible prejudice. (¶ 10–11)
- The courts below incorrectly treated the request as six years late. The certificate was obtained and tendered following the objection to the forensic report, while the trial remained pending. (¶ 12–14)
- The certificate was not newly created substantive evidence of the offence; it supplied the legal proof requirement for a report already on record. Recall caused no irreversible prejudice because the accused could fully rebut it. (¶ 15)
- Section 311 exists to further truth and a just decision, with fairness to all parties. The prosecution’s application should have been allowed on these facts. (¶ 15–16)
Result
Appeal allowed; lower-court refusal orders set aside. Prosecution’s Section 311 application allowed for recall and production of the certificate; Trial Court directed to proceed further.