Section 225 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 225 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: Overview and Analysis
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 is a proposed legislation aimed at modernizing and strengthening the legal framework surrounding evidence law in India. It is intended to replace the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which has been in place for over 150 years. Section 225 of the BSA, 2023, specifically deals with the admissibility of digital evidence in Indian courts. The provisions of this section reflect the increasing importance of digital and electronic evidence in modern legal proceedings.
While the exact text of Section 225 would depend on the final draft of the BSA, based on current trends and practices in evidence law, Section 225 is likely to regulate how electronic evidence, such as emails, text messages, data from devices, and digital records, should be handled in court. It likely outlines the conditions under which such evidence is admissible, including the authentication and integrity of the data.
Let’s take a look at four to five hypothetical or real-life cases where Section 225 of the BSA, 2023 might apply, focusing on the use of digital evidence in Indian courts.
1. Case of "Digital Signature Fraud – PQR Pvt. Ltd. v. XYZ Limited" (2022)
Case Overview: PQR Pvt. Ltd., a software company, filed a case against XYZ Limited for using a fraudulent digital signature to authorize transactions on behalf of PQR. The digital signature was allegedly forged, and large sums of money were transferred from PQR’s account to XYZ’s without authorization. The software company claimed that the digital signature used to authorize the transfer did not belong to their authorized signatory.
Legal Issue: The primary legal issue was whether the digital signature could be authenticated as genuine under the law. The defense argued that the evidence was inadmissible because the digital signature could not be properly authenticated, raising concerns about the integrity of the evidence.
Application of Section 225: In this case, Section 225 of the BSA, 2023 would become relevant because it governs how digital evidence (like the digital signature) should be handled in court. The section would likely outline the steps for authenticating the digital signature, such as verifying it through digital certificates or the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) system. The burden of proof would be on the party presenting the evidence to demonstrate that the signature was valid and linked to the accused party.
Outcome: The court would likely rule that the digital signature is admissible as evidence only if the authenticity and integrity are properly established according to the procedures laid out in Section 225. If the digital signature could be verified and proven to be tampered with, the case could result in serious penalties for XYZ Limited.
2. Case of "Email Harassment – Suman Sharma v. Amit Mehta" (2021)
Case Overview: Suman Sharma filed a complaint against Amit Mehta for cyberstalking and email harassment. Suman claimed that Amit had sent a series of threatening and abusive emails over several months, and that these emails contained personal threats that caused her emotional distress. Amit denied sending any such emails, arguing that the evidence (the emails) could have been fabricated or tampered with.
Legal Issue: The key issue was whether the emails could be admissible as evidence in the court of law, given that there was a dispute over the authenticity of the email addresses and the possibility of forgery.
Application of Section 225: Under Section 225 of the BSA, 2023, the emails could be admitted as evidence, but the court would require clear evidence of the authenticity of the emails. This could involve:
Establishing that the email header information (sender’s IP address, server information) could be authenticated using electronic evidence tools.
If the email was stored on a server or device, the metadata would need to be verified to ensure that the email had not been altered or tampered with before being presented in court.
Outcome: Assuming the emails were properly authenticated through technical means outlined in Section 225, they would be admitted as admissible evidence. If the emails were found to be tampered with or fabricated, Amit Mehta could be acquitted, or Suman Sharma could be awarded damages depending on the court’s findings.
3. Case of "Data Theft – TCS Ltd. v. Data Spy Corporation" (2020)
Case Overview: TCS Ltd., a large IT firm, filed a lawsuit against Data Spy Corporation for data theft. The plaintiff claimed that confidential data, including proprietary algorithms and business plans, were stolen from their servers by a hacker working with Data Spy. The key evidence presented was a log file from the server, which showed that someone from Data Spy’s network had accessed and downloaded sensitive files without authorization.
Legal Issue: The issue revolved around the admissibility of the log files as digital evidence, with the defense arguing that log files could be easily manipulated and did not provide definitive proof of theft.
Application of Section 225: Section 225 of the BSA, 2023, would require the log files to be authenticated through a process that ensures their integrity and reliability. The plaintiff would need to establish:
That the log files had been generated by an automated system and could not have been altered after they were created.
The files would need to be verified by forensic experts to ensure they accurately reflected access patterns and did not contain signs of tampering.
Outcome: The court would consider whether the digital evidence was properly authenticated under Section 225 and if the evidence was sufficient to prove that the theft had occurred. If the log files were proven to be unaltered and credible, they would likely be admissible in court, and Data Spy could face penalties for the data theft.
4. Case of "Fake Social Media Account – Priya Gupta v. Ravi Kapoor" (2019)
Case Overview: Priya Gupta, an influencer, filed a defamation suit against Ravi Kapoor, who allegedly created a fake social media profile and posted defamatory content about her. The profile included several posts and photos that damaged Priya’s reputation and career. Ravi denied creating the profile and claimed that the evidence presented (screenshots of the fake account) were doctored or fabricated.
Legal Issue: The issue here was whether screenshots from social media could be used as valid evidence of defamation. Ravi argued that screenshots could easily be manipulated.
Application of Section 225: According to Section 225 of the BSA, the screenshots could be admitted as evidence, but they would need to be:
Verified using digital forensics to show that the content had not been altered.
The court would need to confirm that the screenshots had been taken directly from a verifiable source and not manipulated after the fact.
The metadata of the screenshots could also be used to prove when the content was posted and by whom.
Outcome: If the digital evidence could be authenticated as per Section 225, it would be admissible in court. If Ravi could not prove that the screenshots were falsified, he could be held liable for defamation.
5. Case of "Online Fraud – Neha Verma v. Shubham Enterprises" (2023)
Case Overview: Neha Verma had made an online purchase of a high-end gadget from Shubham Enterprises. After paying for the item, she never received the product, and the business failed to respond to her queries. Neha presented as evidence the email correspondence and the transaction receipt she had received from Shubham Enterprises.
Legal Issue: Shubham Enterprises contested the authenticity of the transaction receipt, claiming it could have been fabricated. They also challenged the authenticity of the email correspondence, asserting that these could be easily manipulated.
Application of Section 225: Section 225 would provide guidelines for verifying the authenticity of the email correspondence and transaction receipt:
For the email, the court would likely use email header analysis and server records to validate the emails as genuine.
For the transaction receipt, digital evidence tools could be used to check the integrity of the file and ensure it had not been altered.
Outcome: If Neha could prove the authenticity of the evidence using digital forensics tools, the court would likely rule in her favor, and Shubham Enterprises could be ordered to refund her the amount or face penalties for fraud.
Conclusion
Section 225 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 is a crucial reform in the area of digital evidence. It helps establish a framework for the admissibility of electronic records, such as emails, digital signatures, transaction logs, and social media posts, ensuring that such evidence is handled in a way that preserves its integrity and reliability. These hypothetical cases illustrate how Section 225 would be applied to various forms of digital evidence and how it could influence outcomes
RELATED Blog
comments