Mutual Admissibility of Evidence and Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings as per Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Dr. Neeraj Malik

doi:10.36676/urr.v11.i4.1311

Authors

Dr. Neeraj Malik Assistant Professor of Law, C. R. Law College, Jat Educational Society G.J.U.S&T, Hisar.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36676/urr.v11.i4.1311

Keywords:

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Admissibility of Evidence & Electronic Evidence,, Standing Committee on Home Affairs, 2023, Directive proposal of European Union, Law Commission, 2003, Malimath Committee, , Guidelines by Karnataka High Court, State (NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005), Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014),, Tomaso Bruno v. State of Haryana (2017), Shafhi Mohamad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Khushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. (2020)

Abstract

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes comprehensive evidentiary standards for fair trials, including admissibility of electronic evidence. Clearer definitions of "Document," Primary Electronic Evidence, and relevant provisions of BSA, 2023 requirements associated with the Information Technology Act, 2000 were developed recently. The Supreme Court of India has addressed electronic data tampering and e-record admissibility, while the Central Government Home Affair’s Standing Committee has underlined the necessity of safeguarding digital data integrity and its value. Latest Judicial developments and new provisions on admissibility and mutual admissibility of electronic evidences are examined in the paper.

References

Section 58 (Viii), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Section 2 (e), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Section 2 (d) illustration (vi), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Section 57 Explaination 6, Bharatiya Sakshya.

Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2015, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1156/2013.

(2005) 11 SCC 600.

Harpal Singh @ Chhota v. State of Punjab, 2016 (on Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act,1872—Now Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023)

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018, SC

(2005) 11 SCC 600.

P. Gopalkrishanan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and another, Criminal Appeal No. 1794 of 2019.

M/s Safeguard Industries v. Rajinder Kumar, Delhi H.C., CM(M) 882/2018 & CM APPL. 31011/2018.

(2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. 2019 SCC Online SC 1553.

Yuvraj P. Narvankar, Practising Lawyer at High Court & Supreme Court, Article “Recent Judgement of the Supreme Court in Arjun Khotkar: A Missed Opportunity to revisit 65B” https://www.livelaw.in/columns/recent-judgement-of-the-supreme-court-in-arjun-khotkar-a-missed-opportunity-to-revisit-65b-160201

(2017) 8 SCC 570.

Amit Gupta & Harisankar Mahapatra, “Electronic Evidence in the Bhartiya Sakshaya Bill, 2023- Regressive or Progressive?” https://www.livelaw.in/articles/electronic-evidence-bharatiya-sakshya-bill-2023-regressive-progressive-239126

Section 62 & 63, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Of Evidence and admissibility of electronic evidence. (Section 62 & 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), earlier Section 65 A & 65 B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Noted by Division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh in the case of Yuvaraj v. State rep. by The Additional Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Namakkal District & others, Madras High Court, 2023.

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/e-evidence-new-criminal-law-its-implementation/article67900858.ece#:~:text=The%20three%20newly%2Denacted%20criminal,force%20on%20July%201%2C%202024

https://www.livelaw.in/articles/electronic-evidence-admissibility-section-63-bhartiya-saksha-adhiniyam-2023-261511 , Abhiraj Jayant, Advocate, Delhi High Court.