Section 264 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 264 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 is focused on the “Admissibility of Electronic Evidence” and deals with the specific conditions under which digital or electronic evidence can be accepted in a court of law. This section helps ensure that electronic records, digital documents, and other forms of electronic evidence are treated with the same legal weight as traditional physical evidence, provided they meet certain conditions of authenticity, reliability, and integrity.
Key Provisions of Section 264 (BSA, 2023):
Section 264 outlines various rules for the admissibility, integrity, and validation of electronic evidence, and it requires that such evidence must be presented in a way that ensures its credibility and relevance. This involves ensuring the records have been stored, transmitted, and received securely and are unaltered.
Here are several case scenarios where Section 264 of the BSA, 2023 would apply, detailing how electronic records may be used as evidence in Indian courts:
Case 1: Digital Signature on a Business Agreement
Scenario: A company enters into a business agreement with a vendor via email. The vendor later claims that they never agreed to the terms in the contract, and the company presents the email with a digital signature as evidence.
Application of Section 264:
The digital signature on the document can be presented as a valid form of electronic evidence, as long as it is authenticated through a recognized certification authority (CA).
The email containing the digital signature must be backed by a reliable system that ensures the signature cannot be altered once affixed.
The contract’s integrity can be verified by examining the metadata, timestamps, and the public-private key pair that ensures no changes have occurred to the document since signing.
In this case, Section 264 would allow the company to submit the digitally signed document as valid evidence in court, provided the system used for digital signing meets legal standards.
Case 2: Electronic Medical Records in a Medical Malpractice Case
Scenario: A patient sues a hospital for medical malpractice, claiming that they were given improper treatment. The hospital submits the patient’s electronic health records (EHR) as evidence of the treatment provided, including diagnosis, prescriptions, and doctor notes.
Application of Section 264:
Electronic health records can be presented as evidence, provided the hospital can demonstrate that the records have been securely stored and cannot be altered.
The hospital would need to show that the records are authentic and generated through certified medical software or systems.
The records must include proper digital signatures or encryption to ensure their authenticity.
Additionally, the hospital would need to establish the chain of custody to prove that the records were not tampered with at any stage from the time of creation to the time of presentation in court.
Here, Section 264 would support the admissibility of EHRs, but the hospital would have to prove that the records are intact and were properly maintained according to the legal framework.
Case 3: Fraudulent Transactions in Online Banking
Scenario: A person accuses a bank of facilitating fraudulent transactions on their account. The bank presents the transaction logs, which are stored electronically, showing that the customer had authorized the transactions via their online banking portal.
Application of Section 264:
The transaction logs are admissible as evidence under Section 264, provided the logs are protected against tampering and stored in a secure, verifiable manner.
The bank must be able to authenticate the logs through the use of digital signatures or hashing algorithms to ensure that the records cannot be altered after being generated.
In cases where a dispute arises over the authenticity of the logs, the bank may need to call an IT expert to testify about the system’s security and its ability to preserve the records’ integrity.
In this scenario, the court will accept the electronic logs as evidence, but only if they meet the criteria of authenticity and reliability set forth in Section 264.
Case 4: Email Communications in a Civil Dispute
Scenario: In a dispute over an intellectual property contract, one party presents email communications exchanged with the other party, which allegedly prove that the other party breached the agreement.
Application of Section 264:
Email communications can be admissible as evidence under Section 264, provided the party presenting the emails can demonstrate their authenticity.
The emails should be stored in a manner that ensures their integrity (e.g., using email servers with secure backups).
The court would need to confirm that the emails are unaltered and that they originate from the claimed sender.
Metadata such as timestamps and the sender’s IP address may be used to verify the origin and timing of the emails.
In this case, the court would assess whether the emails were tampered with or altered and would rely on Section 264 to guide the rules for digital evidence in civil disputes.
Case 5: Audio and Video Recordings in Criminal Proceedings
Scenario: A suspect in a criminal case claims that a confession video shown to the police was fabricated. The prosecution presents a video recording that shows the suspect’s confession, and the defense argues it’s unreliable.
Application of Section 264:
The video recording can be presented as evidence, but its authenticity must be proven. The prosecution would need to establish that the video has not been edited or tampered with in any way.
The recording should be authenticated using metadata, such as the time of recording and the device used. In some cases, an expert witness (such as a forensic video analyst) may be called to testify about the integrity of the video file.
The video must have been recorded in compliance with relevant laws governing electronic evidence, and the court must be assured that the evidence has not been altered since its creation.
Under Section 264, the court would allow the video as evidence, but only after ensuring that it meets all legal requirements for authenticity, integrity, and reliability.
Case 6: Data from Social Media in Cybercrime Investigation
Scenario: A cybercrime investigation involves evidence from social media platforms, where posts and direct messages are used to link a suspect to illegal activities. The defense argues that the social media posts are not valid because they could have been altered.
Application of Section 264:
Social media posts and direct messages can be admissible as evidence under Section 264, provided they are authenticated as originating from the accused’s account.
The prosecution must prove that the posts were not tampered with and that the social media platform’s security and data storage protocols are reliable.
Metadata associated with posts, such as timestamps and IP addresses, can help establish the authenticity of the posts and tie them to the suspect.
Additionally, testimony from a forensic expert may be required to establish that the evidence has not been altered.
In this case, Section 264 would be crucial in determining whether the digital evidence from social media can be accepted as valid in court, considering the need for secure storage and authentication.
General Principles for Application of Section 264:
Authentication: The party presenting the electronic evidence must prove that the evidence is authentic and has not been tampered with.
Integrity: The evidence must be presented in a way that ensures it has remained unaltered since its creation and storage.
Chain of Custody: There must be a clear and verifiable chain of custody to ensure the evidence has been handled securely and consistently.
Expert Testimony: In many cases, an expert in information technology, digital forensics, or cybersecurity may be required to testify about the reliability and authenticity of the electronic evidence.
Section 264 of the BSA, 2023 plays a crucial role in ensuring that electronic records can be presented and used in court with the same legal value as traditional forms of evidence, as long as they meet the necessary standards for authenticity, integrity, and reliability.
RELATED Blog
comments