In the present case, the sole foundation of the revisionist's claim of adultery is digital evidence in the form of Instagram chats. This brings the Court to the crucial aspect of the admissibility and evidentiary value of electronic records. {Para 12}
13. It is a settled proposition of law that the admissibility of electronic evidence must be tested strictly at the anvil of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the landmark decision of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC, a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the mandatory nature of this statutory requirement.
14. It was further reiterated in the said judgment, following the ratio in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer 2014 (10) SCC 473, that the statutory certificate is a mandatory condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of an electronic record. Secondary evidence of electronic records is admissible only if led in the strict manner stated in the statute, and not otherwise.
15. The necessity for such strict verification stems from the inherent vulnerabilities of digital data. As observed by the Apex Court in various pronouncements dealing with electronic evidence and private investigations, there is an ever-present danger regarding the authenticity of such material.
16. Applying these settled legal principles to the facts at hand, it is evident that the Instagram chats produced by the revisionist are not supported by the mandatory statutory certification. In the absence of such a certificate, it would be entirely incorrect in law to treat this electronic evidence as admissible.
17. Even if, for the sake of argument, the contents of the unverified chats were to be perused, mere text messages on a social media platform, without corroborative evidence of physical intimacy or cohabitation, are thoroughly insufficient to legally establish that the wife is continuously "living in adultery". The burden lies heavily upon the revisionist to prove a continuous adulterous lifestyle, which he has failed to discharge.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7800 of 2025
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
