LANDMARK CASE

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh

(2018) 2 SCC 801 · Supreme Court of India · Evidence

At a glance

Citation: (2018) 2 SCC 801
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Evidence
In one line: It said not when the party cannot obtain it. Overruled by Arjun Panditrao (2020).

1 Facts

The question was whether electronic evidence needed a certificate if the party did not control the device.

2 Issue

Is the certificate always required?

3 What the court decided

It said not when the party cannot obtain it. Overruled by Arjun Panditrao (2020).

4 Why it matters

Shows how electronic evidence law evolved.

5 Think about it

Why did the larger bench disagree?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Evidence

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1
Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808
Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 1012

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Shabnam v. Union of India Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.