Call Recordings Without Certification: An Inadmissible Pillar Of Conviction
- IJLLR Journal
- Mar 19
- 2 min read
Call Recordings Without Certification: An Inadmissible Pillar Of Conviction - Analysing The Mandatory Certificate Requirement Under Section 63 Of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 In The Light Of Pooranmal V. State Of Rajasthan (2026 Insc 217)
Rhitik Yadav, LLM, University of Allahabad
ABSTRACT
The digital transformation of Indian criminal proceedings has placed electronic evidence — particularly call recordings and call detail records — at the forefront of prosecutorial strategy. Yet the growing reliance on telephonic evidence in criminal trials brings with it serious evidentiary challenges that courts are only beginning to confront with the rigour they demand. The Supreme Court of India, in Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan (Crl.A. No. 1266/2026, decided on 10 March 2026), has once again affirmed a foundational proposition: electronic records are not admissible in evidence unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate prescribed by law. Furthermore, even where such evidence were admissible, conviction cannot rest upon uncorroborated electronic records alone.
This article examines, through the lens of Pooranmal, the interplay between the admissibility requirement under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) — the successor provision to Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — and the broader principle that call recordings, standing alone, cannot sustain a criminal conviction. The article traces the judicial evolution from Anvar P.V. through Shafhi Mohammad to P. Gopalkrishnan (Bhima Koregaon), and maps how these precedents crystallise into the regime now operative under the BSA. It further identifies the structural inadequacy of substituting oral testimony by nodal officers for the statutory certificate, and advocates for a reinvigorated judicial commitment to the twin principles of certified admissibility and corroboration. The article concludes by proposing doctrinal guardrails for trial courts and investigating agencies to ensure that digital evidence does not become an instrument of wrongful conviction.
