Why MP High Court Rejected Pen Drive Evidence in Malini Jain Case
In the digital age, audio and video recordings are often seen as "smoking guns" in legal battles. However, a recent landmark judgment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court serves as a crucial reminder: Electronic evidence is only as good as its legal foundation.
In the case of Malini Jain v. Pankaj Bhutad and Others (February 6, 2026), the Court clarified why simply handing over a pen drive is insufficient for it to be accepted as legal proof.
The Case Background: Malini Jain v. Pankaj Bhutad
The case originated from an FIR filed in 2021 involving allegations of forgery (Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC). The petitioner, Malini Jain, alleged that medical records were forged to cover up negligence during her husband's treatment.
To support her claim, she sought to submit a pen drive containing voice recordings of her late husband. The Trial Court rejected the application, leading to a challenge in the High Court.
Why the High Court Rejected the Pen Drive Evidence
Justice B.P. Sharma upheld the rejection, highlighting three critical legal pillars that every litigant must understand:
1. The Challenge of Voice Identification
The Court observed that there was no "accepted and definite evidence" to identify the voice in the recording.
Legal Rule: For an audio recording to be admissible, the prosecution or petitioner must prove beyond doubt that the voice belongs to the person claimed. Without a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report or spectrography test, a recording remains mere "noise" in the eyes of the law.
2. Legal Relevance vs. General Allegations
A significant reason for the rejection was the mismatch between the charges and the evidence.
The Mismatch: The accused were charged with forgery and cheating. The recordings, however, allegedly discussed medical negligence.
The Court’s View: Evidence must be strictly relevant to the specific charges framed. Material pointing toward negligence cannot automatically be used to prove a charge of document forgery.
3. Unexplained Delay and Credibility
The incident occurred in April 2021, but the pen drive was only brought forward in July 2024.
The "Silence" Factor: The Court noted that the existence of these recordings was never mentioned during the initial police investigation or in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. This three-year delay cast a shadow of doubt on the authenticity of the device.
The Necessity of Section 63 BSA (Formerly Section 65B)
Under the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, specifically Section 63, electronic records are classified as secondary evidence. To make them admissible, you must provide a certificate that:
Identifies the electronic record.
Describes the manner in which it was produced.
Confirms that the device was operating properly and the data has not been tampered with.
How to Ensure Your Digital Evidence Stands in Court
To ensure that digital evidence like a pen drive is accepted in an Indian Court, the following steps are vital:
Immediate Disclosure: Mention the existence of the recording at the earliest possible stage (e.g., in the FIR or initial statements).
Maintain Chain of Custody: Ensure the original device (the phone or recorder used) is preserved and its "Hash Value" is recorded.
Procedural Compliance: Always file the mandatory certificate under Section 63 of the BSA (or Section 65B of the Evidence Act for older cases).
Expert Verification: Seek voice or image identification through authorized forensic experts.
Conclusion
The MP High Court’s ruling in the Malini Jain case reinforces that procedural integrity is non-negotiable. A pen drive is a vulnerable medium, susceptible to tampering and editing. Until the law is satisfied with its origin and relevance, it will remain outside the courtroom doors.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Comments 0