AIR 2017 SC 3441 ::2017 CRI. L. J. 4352 ::AIR 2017 SC( Cri) 1170 ::(2017) 2 MadLW(Cri) 606 ::(2018) 1 Mh LJ (Cri) 433 ::(2017) 3 CriLR(Raj) 901 ::(2017) 3 DLT(CRL) 567 ::(2017) 3 CurCriR 241 ::2017 CriLR(SC&MP) 901 ::(2017) 68 OCR 98 ::2017 (8) SCC 570 ::2017 (3) SCC (Cri) 663 ::(2017) 4 Mad LJ(Cri) 23 ::(2017) 3 RecCriR 786 ::(2017) 8 Scale 45 ::2017 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 901 ::(2017) 2 ALD(CRL) 814 ::(2017) 4 AllCriLR 858 ::2017 CalCriLR 4 408 ::(2017) 3 UC 1684 ::(2017) 3 Crimes 234 ::(2017) 101 AllCriC 929 ::(2017) 178 AllIndCas 50 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao , JJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.65B(4)— Electronic records - Admissibility of - CDRs of mobile phones recovered from accused - Exhibited before Trial Court without objection from defence - Objection that CDRs are unreliable being marked without certificate as required by S. 65-B(4) - Cannot be raised at belated stage since it relates to mode or method of proof of document. An electronic record is not admissible unless it is accompanied by a certificate as contemplated under S. 65-B (4) of Evidence Act is no more res integra. The question that falls for consideration in present case is permissibility of an objection regarding inadmissibility at this stage. Admittedly, no objection was taken when the CDRs were adduced in evidence before Trial Court. It does not appear from record that any such objection was taken even at appellate stage before High Court. It is nobody's case that CDRs which are a form of electronic record are not inherently admissible in evidence. The objection is that they were marked before Trial Court without a certificate as required by Section 65-B(4) of Evidence Act. An objection relating to mode or method of proof has to be raised at time of marking of document as an exhibit and not later. The crucial test, is whether defect could have been cured at stage of marking document. Applying this test to present case, if an objection was take....