Fourteen Pages of WhatsApp Chats and a Certificate Signed by the Complainant
In a sessions trial for cheating and forgery before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, the prosecution alleges that the accused, a commission agent, induced the complainant to part with Rs 15,00,000 for 4 kanal of agricultural land by sending WhatsApp messages from a mobile number ending 4321. The prosecution files: (i) fourteen pages of chat printouts downloaded from the complainant's handset; (ii) a certificate under Section 63(4) BSA signed by the complainant himself; (iii) the customer application form and call detail records of the accused's number, obtained from the service provider along with a certificate from its nodal officer; and (iv) a pen drive said to contain the chat export. The complainant's handset was never seized, no seizure memo was prepared, and the printouts were taken three months after the chats. The defence objects to all these items as inadmissible secondary electronic evidence.
1. Are the chat printouts admissible? Examine the sufficiency of the certificate signed by the complainant.
Read the worked answer
Two separate questions are bundled here: admissibility under Section 63 BSA (formerly Section 65B of the Evidence Act) and proof of authorship. On admissibility, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal holds that the certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence and that Shafhi Mohammad, which had dispensed with it in some situations, is no longer good law. The complainant, as the person who owns and operates the handset from which the chats were exported, is a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the device and can give the certificate; it is not necessary that a police officer or a forensic expert sign it. The certificate, however, must contain the statutory particulars - identification of the electronic record, description of the device and the manner of production, and a statement dealing with the conditions in Section 63(1) and (2). A certificate that merely says 'the chats are true' is insufficient.
But admissibility is not proof. Ravinder Singh v. State of Punjab requires the prosecution to prove who authored the messages, that the number ending 4321 belonged to the accused, and that the messages were not altered. The customer application form addresses ownership of the number; the chats themselves must be connected to the accused through the device, the number and the context. The failure to seize the handset and the three-month delay go to weight and to the possibility of interpolation, and the defence is entitled to cross-examine on them. The court should admit the printouts subject to proof, and record an express finding on authorship before relying on them.
2. Can the CDR be read without a certificate? Distinguish it from the chat printouts.
Read the worked answer
The CDR stands on a different footing. It is a computer output generated by the service provider's server, produced by a third party which is not the complainant and which has no interest in the dispute. Section 63(4) BSA requires a certificate from the person in charge of the computer or of the management of the relevant activity; the nodal officer of the service provider is precisely such a person, and the certificate on file, if it identifies the records and the period and states compliance with the statutory conditions, is sufficient. Without such a certificate the CDR would be inadmissible as secondary evidence, as Arjun Panditrao makes clear; a mere certified copy under Section 76 or 77 of the Evidence Act does not dispense with the Section 63 certificate where the record is electronic.
The distinction matters practically: the chats were generated on the complainant's own device, so the certificate comes from a party with an interest and must be scrutinised closely; the CDR was generated on the service provider's system, so the certificate comes from a neutral custodian and carries greater assurance. Both, however, still require proof that the SIM and number belonged to the accused, which the customer application form supplies only if it is proved through the officer who maintains it. The defence objection to the CDR should therefore be overruled if the certificate is formally complete, while the objection to the chats should be kept open on authorship.
3. How should the court rule if the prosecution, after closing its evidence, seeks to summon the nodal officer to give a certificate?
Read the worked answer
The court has the power to permit this, but not as a matter of course. Arjun Panditrao expressly permits the requisite certificate to be produced at any stage before the trial is over, and the court may summon the certificate-holder; the purpose is to subserve the ends of justice, not to allow the prosecution to repair every lacuna. The court should therefore ask three questions: why was the certificate not obtained during investigation despite the service provider being known; what prejudice the accused will suffer; and whether the recall will delay the trial disproportionately.
If the answer is that the certificate is formal in nature and no new case is being set up, the court may allow the application, summon the nodal officer, and - critically - grant the defence the right to cross-examine him on the certificate and on the records, and permit recall of any witness if necessary. This can be done under the court's power to summon a witness at any stage (Section 311 CrPC, now carried into the BNSS) with reasons recorded. If, on the other hand, the attempt is to fill a substantive gap - for example, to prove that the number belonged to the accused when the customer application form itself is doubtful - the application should be refused with reasons.
The guiding principle is that the certificate is a procedural safeguard for authenticity, not a weapon to defeat a genuine prosecution or to ambush the defence; the court's discretion must be exercised with reasons on the record.