Screenshot may be a common word during this 21st century. Our smartphone and digital platform to seem online is given this feature now. Mostly everyone heard about the term. The term “screenshot” informs that when an individual is interacting with another during a written format like facebook, email, whatsapp and one of both the parties behaves inappropriately then one among them may as a symbol of that capture the screen in order that when the opposite person cannot deny that. this is often the acceptable work of the work.
At the time when one goes to a court concerning a case then they produce information to the judge called evidence and therefore the judge will decide the case accordingly. just in case we aren’t hiring an attorney for the case then one should gather the proper and relevant information that’s shreds of evidence to the court during a right way. The judges reach to the choices depends upon the knowledge that both the parties provide. the knowledge must not be any guesswork or any rumour. The text messages, screenshots, or audio messages helps as a symbol of evidence within the court. The Evidence Act states that the screenshots because the evidence in court, because it’s produced because the electronic evidence. When the screenshot is produced as evidence within the courts, the small print of phone and therefore the date during which it’s taken along side and given in Court. The Supreme Court has tried, through means of varied judgements, tried to resolve this procedural dichotomy. However, the new judgements have shown the contrary intention of the Apex Court.
In 2005 the most case from the Supreme Court of India named within the State NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, which stood as an authority for quite nine years on the admissibility of secondary evidence concerning electronic record stands overruled by the choice of the Division Bench of the Apex Court of India in the case named Ansar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer et al..
Advancement in technology and its application across various dimensions has resulted in creation and storage of data in electronic form necessitating a considerable change within the law regarding electronic evidence. so as to bridge the widening gap between law and technology, the Parliament enacted the knowledge Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Amongst other things, the IT Act defined terminologies like that of knowledge, electronic record, computer, computer outputaside from introducing new concepts, the said legislation also brought an amendment to the Evidence Act, 1872 providing special provisions for adducing electronic evidence in Courts.
Screenshot as evidence
The said amendments to the Evidence Act, 1872 caused following changes:
Section 59 of the Act was modified so as to exclude proving of contents of documents (including electronic records) by oral evidence. Sec 22A, after being included it had been as long as oral evidence with reference to contents of electronic records has relevancy only genuineness of the record is in question.
Section 45A was also included within the Evidence Act, which provides that opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence are going to be relevant fact when the Court has got to form an opinion on any matter concerning information in electronic form. Who are often the Electronic Evidence Examiner for the aim of this Section is mentioned in Sec 79A of the knowledge Technology Act.
The Supreme Court after considering the evidence during a case classified an equivalent into three forms:
• electronic records,
• documentary evidence aside from electronic records, and
• oral evidence.
The Supreme Court after an analysis of adducing electronic record as evidence observed that any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under this act, in sight of Sections 59 and 65A, are often proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B.
Thereby, overruling the views made in earlier Judgment by the Apex Court of the country which disregarded the prevailing provisions of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court of India after considering the electronic record put forth by the Appellant rendered them as inadmissible because the Appellant had not produced the certificate required in terms of Section 65B in respect of theircase diaries provided as electronic records.
Conclusion Hereby it concludes that the Screenshot are often produced in court and may be used as an evidence. Therefore with the digital environment courts also are allowing the environment to cope up digitally.