S. Karunakaran v. Srileka
 In the Madras High Court
CMP 10093/2019
           Before Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice N. Sathish Kumar
Decided on April 30, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Presumption as to the sender of an email.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

● The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2)

● The Indian Evidence Act, 1860 (Section 88A)

Relevant Facts of the Case

● The fact remains that the plaintiff and the defendant are students of an engineering college. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant used to propose love to her despite her reluctance. Given the insistence of common friends under the pretext of attending an interview, the plaintiff joined the defendant and common friends in a particular place in Parrys Corner on 12.06.2013 with necessary certificates and photos as requested by her friends including the defendant. While having milk at a milk parlour, some people came from the office and verified her certificates, and two persons also obtained her signatures in printed forms.

● Then immediately, she was taken inside the office and made to sign in the register. Though she came to know that such a register was marriage form, due to surrounded by friends and pressure from them, she signed in the form and immediately went away from the place and reached her home by bus.

● The plaintiff tried her level best to get back those certificates from the defendant and requested him to cancel the fraudulent and invalid marriage certificate. But the defendant started blackmailing and insisting the plaintiff should join him as his wife. However, on 10.03.2014, the defendant and his gang of persons came to Thirunindravoor Police Station and gave a false report as if her parents have confined the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff complained to the police station on 13.03.2014. Hence, the suit to cancel the marriage certificate.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

● The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr N. Nagu Shah, contended that email correspondences between the plaintiff and the defendant had been filed to prove the relationship between them. In this regard, Ex.B.2, a copy of the email said to have been exchanged between the parties has been filed. 

Opinion of the Bench 

● It is relevant to note that the telegraphic materials cannot be received as evidence. The mere filing of such email, it cannot be said that those emails have been proved as per law. It is to be noted that the sending of electronic messages or email has to be established. Though the Court may presume that the electronic message forwarded to the person to whom such message purports to be addressed and this Court cannot presume that only the plaintiff has sent such an email. 

● A careful perusal of Section 88(A) of the Indian Evidence Act makes it very clear that the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent. Therefore, the mere filing of such a message, it cannot be presumed that only the plaintiff has propelled such a message. Whether the plaintiff has sent the email, the system from which the email has been originated belong to the plaintiff was in her custody and possession has not been established.

Final Decision

● Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, and the decree and judgment of the trial Court are confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No cost.

इस केस सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें। | To read this case summary in Hindi, click here.