Pen Drive Evidence Cannot Be Admitted Without Proof, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court order rejecting a woman’s plea to bring on record a pen drive containing alleged voice recordings of her deceased husband in a criminal case concerning forgery of medical documents, holding that the electronic material lacked relevance to the charges framed and was unsupported by legally acceptable proof of voice identification.

Justice B.P. Sharma, by an order dated February 6, 2026, dismissed a petition filed by Malini Jain challenging the August 30, 2024 order of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, which had declined her application under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to rely on the electronic record.

The case arises from an FIR registered on October 13, 2021 against Pankaj Bhutad and others for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations relate to the preparation of forged medical treatment records concerning the petitioner’s husband, Satish Kumar Jain, who later died during treatment. It was alleged that forged documents were prepared to conceal lapses in medical care and to extort money from the deceased’s family.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Akash Singhai contended that the trial court had dismissed the application in a mechanical manner without appreciating the relevance of the electronic evidence. He submitted that the pen drive contained telephonic conversations in which the deceased had informed his family members that he was not being provided proper medical treatment. According to the petitioner, these recordings were directly connected to the FIR and demonstrated that the accused had prepared false medical records to hide their negligence.

It was further argued that the electronic evidence was necessary for a just and fair decision of the case and that the rejection of the application would seriously prejudice the prosecution. The petitioner maintained that the pen drive was intrinsically linked to the allegations of forgery and manipulation of medical records.

Opposing the plea, Advocate Eshaan Datt, appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that the impugned order was well reasoned and did not call for interference. The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Amit Bhurrak. The respondents argued that none of the family members of the deceased had disclosed the existence of any such telephonic conversations in their statements recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They further contended that the application had been filed after an unexplained delay of more than three years, casting serious doubt on the authenticity of the electronic device.

After hearing the parties and perusing the case diary, the High court noted that the primary reliance of the petitioner was on alleged conversations pointing towards medical negligence. However, the court emphasised that the accused had been charged only with offences relating to cheating and forgery, and not with medical negligence. It observed that material pertaining to negligence could not automatically be treated as relevant for adjudicating charges confined to forgery of documents.

The court also upheld the trial court’s finding that there was no acceptable evidence on record to establish or identify the voice of the deceased in the alleged recordings. It noted that, in the absence of “any accepted and definite evidence identifying the voice of the deceased, Satish Kumar Jain,” even if the pen drive were taken on record, the prosecution would have no means to prove the alleged conversation.

Another factor weighing against the petitioner was the unexplained delay in seeking production of the electronic evidence. The incident occurred in April 2021, while the application was filed only on July 24, 2024. The court further noted that this aspect was never disclosed during investigation, thereby weakening the credibility of the claim.

Finding no infirmity or illegality in the trial court’s reasoning, the High court concluded that no interference was warranted. The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

Case Title: Malini Jain v. Pankaj Bhutad and Others

Date of Order: February 6, 2026

Bench: Justice B. P. Sharma