Evidentiary Rules For Admissibility Of Electronic Records In Nepal
1. Baburam Aryal v. Government of Nepal (2017)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the disclosure of his telecom data by a service provider without consent, claiming it violated privacy. The data included call logs and text message history.
Issue: Whether digital records held by telecom companies can be disclosed and admitted as evidence.
Court’s Reasoning: The court recognized that electronic records (telecom logs) constitute material evidence but emphasized they must be acquired lawfully. Unauthorized disclosure violates constitutional rights to privacy.
Significance: This case established that electronic records are admissible, but legality of acquisition is a prerequisite. It underlined the protection of digital records as evidence while balancing privacy rights.
2. Kedar Aryal v. Government of Nepal (2017)
Facts: The accused was implicated in bribery, and the prosecution submitted a CD containing video evidence showing the accused accepting a bribe.
Issue: Can a digital recording in CD format be admitted as evidence?
Court’s Reasoning: The court held that digital evidence is admissible if it can be shown to be authentic and untampered. Proper chain of custody and verification were emphasized.
Significance: First clear instance where a Nepali court formally recognized a digital recording as valid evidence, setting a precedent for using electronic records in criminal prosecutions.
3. Shyam Adhikari v. Government of Nepal (2019)
Facts: The prosecution tendered a voice recording of the accused made on a mobile phone. The defense challenged its authenticity, alleging tampering.
Issue: How to determine the admissibility of audio recordings.
Court’s Reasoning: The court ruled that audio evidence requires expert verification to establish that the voice belongs to the accused and the recording is untampered. Forensic examination was ordered.
Significance: Highlighted the necessity of technical expert verification for electronic evidence when authenticity is disputed.
4. Prem Bahadur Thapa v. Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (2022)
Facts: The accused was investigated for corruption, and the prosecution relied on CCTV footage and digital audio recordings captured during surveillance.
Issue: Can covertly recorded digital evidence be admitted?
Court’s Reasoning: The court allowed the evidence but stressed proper collection, scientific verification, and chain of custody. Any breach in procedure could render electronic evidence inadmissible.
Significance: Reinforced that courts accept electronic evidence if collection and preservation are legally sound and verified by technical experts.
5. Urmila Bote v. Government of Nepal (2023)
Facts: The victim recorded a statement on a mobile phone before her death; the statement was tendered as evidence.
Issue: Whether audio recordings can be treated as dying declarations/electronic evidence.
Court’s Reasoning: The court allowed the recording as admissible evidence, provided that authenticity and integrity could be confirmed.
Significance: Demonstrated that electronic records can serve as primary evidence, including in sensitive cases like dying declarations, if verified.
6. Bam Bahadur Basnet v. Government of Nepal (2014)
Facts: In a fraud case, the prosecution submitted videos, photos, and emails as evidence.
Issue: Whether multiple forms of electronic evidence can be treated as documentary evidence.
Court’s Reasoning: The court ruled that electronic evidence, when properly maintained and unchallenged, is admissible as documentary evidence. If authenticity is disputed, expert examination is required.
Significance: Clarified that courts in Nepal can treat digital evidence similarly to written documents, subject to authenticity verification.
7. Krishna Shrestha v. Government of Nepal (2020)
Facts: The accused sent threatening messages via social media; screenshots were submitted as evidence.
Issue: Can social media messages and screenshots be admitted as electronic evidence?
Court’s Reasoning: Court allowed the screenshots as evidence, provided metadata and origin could be verified. Emphasized that social media content is admissible but must meet authenticity standards.
Significance: Extended admissibility to modern digital communication platforms, including social media and messaging apps.
Key Principles from These Cases
Electronic records are admissible as evidence if they are relevant and material.
Authenticity and integrity are crucial; courts often require forensic verification.
Chain of custody must be maintained to prevent tampering.
Legality of acquisition is necessary to prevent violation of privacy or other rights.
Format flexibility: audio, video, CD, emails, and screenshots are all admissible when verified.
Courts increasingly recognize the evolving nature of technology and adapt procedural rules accordingly.
RELATED Blog
comments