The entries in that register can be proved only by producing the registers by the person, who is having custody or control of the register. Taking photos of the register in mobile phone and trying to introduce it as an electronic evidence is legally not permissible.
The Timeline App details is not a proof of location of a person but only proof of location of the device. The Timeline App details are also amenable to manipulation. Hence, the screen shot of Timeline App details are not admissible in evidence.
A screen shot or downloaded PDF statements found in a mobile phone cannot be construed as information in electronic form stored by a person in his regular course of business.
For admitting a secondary evidence, the person who seeks to introduce secondary evidence has to satisfy the conditions
laid in Section 65 of Evidence Act. A third party, by converting a primary evidence which is in physical form into an electronic document cannot be termed that document as an electronic evidence to get substituted to the primary document. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act comes into operation only if the primary evidence itself is in electronic form or stored in the computer from physical form in the regular course of business.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.22866 of 2023 Pronounced on : 17.10.2023
M.Arul Kumar, .. Petitioner/Accused
/versus/
P.Shanmugam, … Respondent/Complainant
