• Adv Govind Bali
• Law of Evidence, Law Student Notes
• August 22, 2026

Electronic Evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

What Counts as Electronic Evidence under BSA?

The BSA does not treat digital material as a narrow exception. Section 2 itself recognises an electronic record on emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptops or smartphones, messages, websites, locational evidence and voice-mail messages stored on digital devices as a document. Documentary evidence therefore includes electronic and digital records produced for inspection of the court.

Common examples include:

Part I — Sections 61, 62 and 63 Explained

Section 61: Electronic or Digital Record

Section 61 removes the old instinct that a record is somehow inferior merely because it exists electronically. An electronic or digital record cannot be denied admissibility merely on that ground. Subject to Section 63, it has the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as another document.

Section 61 does not mean that every screenshot or downloaded file is automatically proved. It removes discrimination based on form; the party must still establish the applicable proof requirements, authenticity, relevance and weight.

Section 62: Special Provision for Electronic Records

Section 62 is deliberately short but important: the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 63. In a problem question, Section 62 therefore operates as the bridge between the existence of an electronic record and the detailed computer-output rules in Section 63.

Section 63(1): When Computer Output Becomes Admissible

Section 63 covers information contained in an electronic record that is printed, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media, semiconductor memory or another electronic form and is produced by a computer or communication device. When the statutory conditions are satisfied, the computer output is deemed to be a document and may be admitted without production of the original electronic source.

This is why the provision matters for a printed email, exported WhatsApp chat, copied CCTV clip, downloaded CDR, copied server log or forensic extraction. The court is often not receiving the original operational server or original surveillance system; it is receiving an output generated from that system.

Section 63(2): Four Conditions to Remember

Section 63(3): Modern Systems Are Treated as One Computer or Device

Modern data rarely sits on one isolated machine. Section 63(3) recognises standalone devices, computer systems, networks, computer resources used for creation/processing/storage and intermediaries. Where multiple computers or communication devices operate during the relevant period, the statutory framework can treat them as a single computer or communication device for Section 63 purposes.

This matters for cloud email, telecom CDR systems, enterprise databases, banking servers, CCTV networks and messaging platforms where data moves through multiple devices and services.

Part II — Section 63(4) Certificate

What Must the Certificate Contain?

When a statement is sought to be given in evidence through the Section 63 computer-output route, Section 63(4) requires the certificate to accompany the electronic record at the relevant instance of submission for admission. The certificate must:

1. Identify the electronic record and describe how it was produced.
2. Give appropriate particulars of the device used to produce the electronic record.
3. Address the Section 63(2) conditions concerning regular use, ordinary-course input, proper operation and reproduction.
4. Follow the statutory signing and certification framework, including the person in charge of the device or management of the relevant activities and the expert contemplated by the provision and Schedule.

Why the Hash Value Matters

A cryptographic hash is a digital fingerprint of a file or data set. If the file changes, the hash ordinarily changes. Recording a hash at acquisition and comparing it later helps demonstrate that the electronic file presented in court is the same file that was extracted or preserved earlier.

A hash does not prove authorship, truth of contents or legality of collection. It primarily assists with integrity and continuity of the digital object.

Certificate vs Chain of Custody

These are related but different ideas. The Section 63 certificate addresses the statutory computer-output foundation. Chain of custody documents who collected, handled, copied, sealed, stored, transferred or analysed the device or file. A formally compliant certificate does not cure an unexplained break in custody where tampering or substitution is genuinely in issue.

Part III — Original Electronic Record vs Computer Output

Students should not mechanically say “every electronic record needs a Section 63 certificate.” The statutory analysis depends on what is actually being produced.

Part IV — Evidence-Type Playbook

1. WhatsApp and Messaging Chats

A WhatsApp screenshot can show what appeared on a screen at one moment, but a complete evidentiary foundation may require more. The party should consider preservation of the original device, export of the chat, contact/account identity, phone number, timestamps, attachments, surrounding messages, backups and any relevant metadata.

If a chat is extracted or exported and tendered as a computer output, Section 63 must be examined. If authorship is denied, the certificate alone does not prove that the opposing party typed the message. Authorship may be established from admissions, surrounding conduct, device/account control, reply pattern, corroborative records or other admissible evidence.

Section 33: Do Not Cherry-Pick a Conversation

Section 33 requires enough of a longer conversation, document or electronic record to be proved as the court considers necessary for a full understanding of the nature and effect of the relied-upon statement. An isolated “yes”, emoji, voice note or cropped chat may be misleading without the surrounding exchange.

2. Email Evidence

For email, preserve the full message rather than only a printed body. Headers, sender/recipient addresses, server routing data, message IDs, attachments and account-control evidence may become important. A printout may require the Section 63 route; a server-generated record may require certification from the relevant custodian or lawful controller.

Section 90 creates only a limited presumption. The court may presume that an electronic message corresponds with the message fed into the system for transmission, but the statute expressly says that the court shall not presume the person by whom the message was sent. Sender identity remains a separate proof question.

3. CCTV and Video Evidence

CCTV cases should identify the camera/DVR/NVR system, date and time settings, extraction method, storage medium, person who performed the extraction, whether the relevant period was overwritten, hash value and continuity of custody. Where footage is copied to a pen drive, CD/DVD or forensic image, the distinction between source and output becomes important.

In Kailas s/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1117, the Supreme Court held that once the statutory electronic-record requirements were fulfilled, video evidence did not become inadmissible merely because no transcript had been prepared. A transcript or explanation may be useful depending on the facts, but it is not an independent universal condition of admissibility.

Official judgment: Kailas s/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1117.

4. Call Detail Records and Telecom Data

CDRs are classic computer output generated from telecom systems. Relevant questions include subscriber identity, number allocation, relevant period, tower/location interpretation, server generation, custodian evidence and certification.

Official judgment: Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 217.

5. Social-Media Posts and Website Content

A web screenshot may disappear or change quickly. Preserve the URL, date/time, complete page, account identifier, profile details, media file and, where possible, server/platform material. The evidentiary issue is not only whether the page existed but whether it is attributable to the person alleged to have created or controlled it.

6. Audio Recordings and Voice Notes

Audio evidence raises source, identity, continuity and editing issues. Preserve the original recording, device/source information, file properties, creation timestamp and any relevant chat or call context. Where voice identity is disputed, corroborative evidence or expert examination may become relevant.

7. Cloud and Server Records

Cloud data may pass through infrastructure beyond the immediate user’s control. Section 63(3) is therefore important because it recognises computer systems, networks, resources and intermediaries. The certificate should identify the relevant source and lawful-control framework as accurately as the available records permit.

Part V — Authenticity, Expert Evidence and Presumptions

Section 39(2): Examiner of Electronic Evidence

Where the court has to form an opinion on information transmitted or stored in a computer resource or another electronic or digital form, Section 39(2) makes the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 a relevant fact. The Examiner is treated as an expert for this purpose.

Expert evidence may become important where there is a genuine issue of manipulation, file structure, forensic extraction, metadata, deleted data, device cloning, hash mismatch, deepfake allegations or other technical matters.

Electronic Presumptions: Sections 85–93

Part VI — Leading Case Law

Why Older Section 65B Cases Still Matter

The BSA has replaced the Evidence Act for proceedings governed by the new statute, but its electronic-evidence framework substantially carries forward the certificate architecture while also expanding and formalising it through current wording and the Schedule. Earlier Supreme Court authorities therefore remain important for principle where the statutory language continues materially, but the current BSA text must always be read first.

Section 170(2) also contains a savings rule: proceedings already pending immediately before BSA commencement continue under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the manner specified there. This is why a 2026 judgment can still decide an older trial under Section 65B while referring to Section 63 BSA as the current counterpart.

Part VII — Digital Evidence Litigation Checklist

In criminal matters, this checklist should be read with our BNSS investigation guide, especially search, seizure, device custody, case diary and Section 193 police-report requirements. At trial stage, see cognizance, charge and trial under BNSS.

Part VIII — Common Mistakes

• Producing only a screenshot while allowing the original device or account data to disappear.
• Assuming a Section 63 certificate proves authorship of a message.
• Using a generic certificate with no device/source particulars.
• Ignoring the BSA Schedule and hash-report fields.
• Producing a cropped conversation without enough context under Section 33.
• Confusing admissibility with truth or evidentiary weight.
• Failing to distinguish primary electronic evidence from a computer output.
• Not preserving original CCTV before the DVR overwrites the recording.
• Producing CDRs without the legally required certification.
• Ignoring chain of custody after a phone or storage device is seized.
• Assuming Section 90 proves who sent an email or electronic message.
• Using old Section 65B numbering without checking whether the proceeding is governed by BSA or saved under the Evidence Act.

How to Answer a 10/15-Mark Electronic Evidence Question

Frequently Asked Questions

What section of BSA governs electronic evidence?

Sections 61–63 form the core electronic-evidence framework. Other relevant provisions include Section 33, Section 39(2), Section 57 and Sections 85–93.

Is a screenshot admissible under BSA?

A screenshot may be relevant documentary material, but admissibility and proof depend on the source, whether it is primary evidence or computer output, Section 63 compliance where applicable, authenticity and surrounding context.

Is a Section 63 certificate mandatory?

Where the party relies on the Section 63 computer-output route, the statutory certificate requirement is central. The Supreme Court in Pooranmal reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the corresponding certificate rule for CDR computer output and expressly identified Section 63 BSA as the current counterpart.

Who signs the BSA Section 63 certificate?

Section 63(4) and the statutory Schedule should be read together. The Schedule contains Part A for the party and Part B for the expert, with source/device and hash particulars. The exact statutory form should be followed for BSA-governed proceedings.

Does a certificate prove the sender of a WhatsApp message?

No. Certification addresses the electronic-record proof route. Authorship may still require separate evidence such as account/device control, admissions, surrounding messages, conduct or corroborative records.

Does BSA presume the sender of an email?

No. Section 90 allows a limited presumption about correspondence of the transmitted message but expressly excludes a presumption about the identity of the person who sent it.

Is a transcript mandatory for CCTV or video evidence?

Not invariably. In Kailas, the Supreme Court held that a duly admissible video did not become inadmissible merely because no transcript had been prepared. Explanatory evidence may still be useful depending on the facts.

What is a hash value?

A hash value is a digital fingerprint generated from data. Comparing hashes helps test whether a file has remained unchanged between acquisition and later production.

Can uncertified CDRs be relied upon?

The Supreme Court in Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 217, held the uncertified CDRs in that case inadmissible and incapable of supporting the prosecution case.

One-Minute Revision

Academic note: This article is for legal education and examination preparation. Electronic-evidence questions depend on the applicable statute, proceeding date, device/source, method of extraction, certification route, chain of custody, authenticity dispute and later judicial decisions. The current statutory text and full judgments should be checked before professional reliance.