The Application of Hearsay Evidence Principles to Electronic Evidence: Legal Evolution from Indian Evidence Act to Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

 The intersection of traditional hearsay evidence principles with modern electronic evidence represents one of the most significant developments in Indian evidentiary law. As digital technology becomes increasingly prevalent in legal proceedings, courts must navigate the complex relationship between age-old hearsay rules and contemporary forms of electronic proof. This evolution reached a pivotal moment with the Delhi High Court's decision in Kundan Singh v. The State (2015) and has been further transformed by the enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, which fundamentally reimagines how electronic evidence is treated within the Indian legal framework.

Understanding the Hearsay Evidence Principle

Foundational Concepts of Hearsay

Hearsay evidence constitutes any statement made by a person not called as a witness, offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement. The fundamental concern underlying the hearsay rule stems from the absence of cross-examination opportunities, which are essential for testing the reliability and credibility of evidence. Under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence must be direct, meaning witnesses can only testify about facts they personally know, observe, or experience.

The rationale behind excluding hearsay evidence centers on ensuring that evidence presented in court is reliable, trustworthy, and subject to adversarial testing. This principle becomes particularly complex when applied to electronic evidence, as traditional hearsay concerns were developed for human assertions rather than computer-generated records.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

The Indian Evidence Act recognizes several exceptions to the hearsay rule, including admissions under Sections 17-23, dying declarations under Section 32(1), declarations relating to family affairs under Section 32(2), and public documents under Sections 35-36. These exceptions acknowledge that certain types of hearsay statements possess inherent reliability or circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness that justify their admission despite the general prohibition.

Electronic Evidence and the Hearsay Challenge

The Nature of Electronic Evidence

Electronic evidence encompasses any information of probative value that is stored or transmitted in electronic form, including computer evidence, digital audio, digital video, cell phones, and digital fax machines. Under the BSA 2023, electronic evidence includes oral statements given electronically and electronic or digital records such as emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptops, smartphones, messages, websites, and voice mail messages. The challenge of applying hearsay principles to electronic evidence arises from the fundamental difference between human assertions and computer-generated records. While traditional hearsay involves human declarants making statements outside of court, electronic evidence often comprises automatically generated data that lacks human assertions entirely.

Distinction Between Computer-Generated and Human-Created Electronic Content

Courts have developed a crucial distinction between different categories of electronic evidence for hearsay analysis. Computer-generated records that are entirely products of computer system functioning, such as call data records (CDRs), server logs, and automated transaction records, do not contain human assertions and therefore are not considered hearsay. These records represent objective data capture rather than subjective human statements.

Conversely, electronic evidence involving human input, such as emails, text messages, social media posts, and voice recordings, may face hearsay challenges if offered to prove the truth of assertions contained within them. The key determinant is whether the electronic record contains human assertions that would trigger traditional hearsay concerns.

The Kundan Singh v. State Landmark Decision

Case Background and Legal Issues

The Delhi High Court's decision in Kundan Singh v. The State (Crl. A. 711/2014) decided on November 24, 2015, by the Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R.K. Gauba, addressed fundamental questions about the admissibility of electronic evidence, specifically Call Data Records (CDRs). The case arose when the appellant's counsel argued that electronic records like CDs containing evidence would require certificates under Section 65B following the Supreme Court's ratio in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer.

Key Holdings on Hearsay and Electronic Evidence

The Delhi High Court made several groundbreaking observations regarding the application of hearsay principles to electronic evidence. The court noted that "the authenticity of a CDR really doesn't depend on what the manager says but on the computer processes," thereby separating electronic records from traditional hearsay concerns. This reasoning established that automatically generated electronic records do not carry the same hearsay risks as human statements.

The court's interpretation of Section 65B(5) created a significant distinction between "processes automatically feeding data to computers as opposed to processes which require human intervention". Since CDRs are automatically generated without human assertions, they escape the traditional hearsay prohibition that applies to human declarants.

Admissibility Requirements and Safeguards

Despite finding that CDRs do not constitute hearsay, the Delhi High Court emphasized that electronic records must still comply with Section 65B certification requirements to ensure "source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to the electronic record sought to be used as evidence". The court ruled that the trial court had correctly obtained the Section 65B certificate and properly relied on the CDR evidence, leading to the conviction being upheld.

Evolution of Electronic Evidence Law in India

The 2000 Amendment and Initial Framework

The introduction of Sections 65A and 65B through the Indian Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2000, marked the beginning of India's formal recognition of electronic evidence. Section 65A established that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 65B, while Section 65B created a comprehensive framework for admissibility with specific conditions and certification requirements.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence Development

The Supreme Court's decision in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer established that Section 65B forms a complete code for electronic evidence admissibility, with the certificate under Section 65B(4) being a mandatory prerequisite. This decision clarified that electronic evidence constitutes secondary evidence requiring special procedural safeguards.

The subsequent case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) introduced flexibility by holding that electronic evidence is admissible subject to court satisfaction about authenticity, and that certificate requirements could be relaxed in certain circumstances where parties cannot provide certificates. However, this decision was later reconsidered in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Goratyal (2020), which reaffirmed the mandatory nature of Section 65B certificates.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023: A New Paradigm

Fundamental Changes in Electronic Evidence Treatment

The BSA 2023 represents a paradigmatic shift in electronic evidence law, replacing the Indian Evidence Act's framework with expanded provisions that better accommodate modern digital realities. Section 62 of BSA provides that electronic record contents may be proved in accordance with Section 63, while Section 63 establishes comprehensive admissibility criteria.

Enhanced Primary Evidence Status

One of the most significant changes under BSA 2023 is the elevation of electronic records to primary evidence status under multiple explanations in Section 57. Explanation 4 provides that multiple files of the same electronic record are each considered primary evidence, while Explanation 5 treats electronic records from proper custody as primary evidence unless disputed. Explanations 6 and 7 extend primary evidence status to simultaneously stored video recordings and records in multiple storage spaces respectively.

Expanded Device Coverage and Hash Value Requirements

The BSA significantly expands the definition of electronic records to include information stored in semiconductor memory, communication devices such as smartphones and laptops, and any electronic form of storage. Section 63 explicitly requires hash values in authentication certificates, addressing concerns about digital evidence integrity that were not adequately covered under the old framework.

Technical Challenges and Authentication Requirements

Hash Value Implementation and Digital Forensics

The BSA 2023's requirement for hash values represents a significant advancement in electronic evidence authentication. Hash values serve as unique digital fingerprints that can detect any alteration or tampering with electronic files. The hash value requirement addresses the Supreme Court's recognition that electronic records may be tampered with and provides a technical safeguard against evidence manipulation.Under Section 63(4) of BSA, certificates must include hash values generated using recognized algorithms such as MD5, SHA-256, or SHA-512. This requirement ensures that any modification to the electronic record becomes immediately detectable, maintaining the integrity of digital evidence throughout the legal process.

Chain of Custody and Anti-Tampering Measures

Digital evidence presents unique challenges regarding chain of custody maintenance due to its susceptibility to alteration, transposition, and excision. Electronic data can be easily created, copied, altered, destroyed, and transferred between media, making their accuracy and reliability frequently suspect. The BSA addresses these concerns through enhanced certification requirements and explicit hash value protocols

Practical Applications and Case Law Analysis

Different Categories of Electronic Evidence

The application of hearsay principles varies significantly across different types of electronic evidence. Call Data Records, server logs, computer-generated transaction records, and CCTV footage are generally not considered hearsay because they represent automatic system functions rather than human assertions. These records are produced by computer systems without human intervention and therefore do not trigger traditional hearsay concerns.

In contrast, emails, text messages, social media posts, and voice recordings contain human assertions that may be offered for the truth of the matters asserted. When such evidence is presented to prove the truth of statements contained within them, courts must carefully analyze whether hearsay exceptions apply or whether the evidence serves non-hearsay purposes.

Business Records Exception and Electronic Evidence

Electronic evidence maintained as business records or in the common course of business may qualify for hearsay exceptions even when containing human assertions. Information memorized as business records, even when the maker lacks personal knowledge of the facts, can be admissible if prepared in the normal course of business activities. This exception has particular relevance for corporate electronic communications and systematically maintained digital records.

Challenges and Controversies in Implementation

Certificate Requirements and Practical Difficulties

The mandatory certificate requirement under both Section 65B of the IEA and Section 63 of BSA creates practical challenges for litigants who may not have access to the original computer systems or responsible personnel. The Shafhi Mohammad decision attempted to address this issue by allowing relaxation of certificate requirements in certain circumstances, but this approach was later rejected by the Supreme Court.

The BSA introduces additional complexity by requiring both party certificates and expert certificates in certain circumstances. While this dual-certification approach enhances authentication reliability, it may create procedural burdens that could impede access to justice in cases involving electronic evidence.

Data Protection and Privacy Concerns

The expanded scope of electronic evidence under BSA 2023 raises significant privacy concerns, particularly regarding the balance between investigative needs and individual privacy rights. Digital evidence collection capabilities can extend far beyond criminal activity identification to reveal extensive personal information about individuals. The challenge lies in ensuring that electronic evidence collection methods respect privacy rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

International Standards and Best Practices

Digital forensics best practices emphasize the importance of following internationally recognized standards for evidence handling. The ISO/IEC 27037 Guidelines for Identification, Collection, Acquisition, and Preservation of Digital Evidence provide a framework for four phases of digital evidence handling: identification, collection, acquisition, and preservation. These international standards influence how Indian courts and investigators approach electronic evidence authentication.

Future Implications and Recommendations

Technological Advancement and Legal Adaptation

The rapid pace of technological advancement continues to outstrip legal framework development, creating ongoing challenges for electronic evidence law. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and deepfakes present new authentication challenges that may require further legal adaptation. The BSA's framework provides a more flexible foundation for addressing these emerging challenges compared to the rigid structure of the IEA.

Training and Capacity Building

The effective implementation of electronic evidence law requires comprehensive training for legal professionals, law enforcement personnel, and judicial officers. Understanding technical concepts such as hash values, digital forensics, and chain of custody maintenance is essential for proper application of the legal framework. Investment in technical education and capacity building will be crucial for realizing the BSA's potential benefits.

Balancing Efficiency and Safeguards

The BSA's approach to electronic evidence reflects an attempt to balance investigative efficiency with evidentiary safeguards. While elevating electronic records to primary evidence status enhances their utility in legal proceedings, the enhanced certification requirements and hash value protocols maintain necessary authenticity protections. Future developments should continue to pursue this balance while adapting to technological evolution.

Conclusion

The application of hearsay evidence principles to electronic evidence has undergone significant evolution from the initial framework established by the Indian Evidence Act to the comprehensive approach adopted by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. The Delhi High Court's decision in Kundan Singh v. The State provided crucial guidance on distinguishing between automatically generated electronic records and human-created digital content for hearsay analysis purposes. This distinction remains fundamental to understanding how traditional evidentiary principles apply to modern digital evidence.

The transition from IEA to BSA represents more than mere legislative updating; it reflects a fundamental reconceptualization of electronic evidence from secondary to primary evidence status, with enhanced technical safeguards and expanded device coverage. The requirement for hash value authentication and dual certification systems addresses longstanding concerns about digital evidence integrity while maintaining necessary procedural protections.

As Indian courts continue to grapple with the intersection of traditional legal principles and modern technology, the frameworks established by landmark cases like Kundan Singh and the comprehensive provisions of BSA 2023 provide essential guidance. The ongoing challenge lies in ensuring that legal professionals, law enforcement agencies, and judicial officers develop the technical competence necessary to effectively implement these frameworks while maintaining the fundamental principles of fairness, reliability, and authenticity that underlie all evidentiary law.

The future of electronic evidence law will likely require continued adaptation to emerging technologies and evolving digital practices. However, the foundation established by the current legal framework, informed by judicial wisdom and legislative foresight, provides a robust platform for addressing these future challenges while preserving the essential protections that ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

 Electronic Evidence and Hearsay Analysis: Comprehensive Reference Tables

Table 1: Electronic Evidence Types and Hearsay Classification

Evidence Type	Hearsay Status	Reason	Section 65B Required
Call Data Records (CDRs)	Not Hearsay	Automatically generated by computer systems without human intervention	Yes
Email Messages	Potential Hearsay	Contains human assertions that may be offered for truth of matter asserted	Yes
Text Messages/SMS	Potential Hearsay	Contains human assertions that may be offered for truth of matter asserted	Yes
CCTV Footage	Not Hearsay	Automatic recording of events, no human assertions involved	Yes
Computer Generated Logs	Not Hearsay	Automatically generated system records without human input	Yes
Social Media Posts	Potential Hearsay	Contains human assertions and opinions that may be hearsay	Yes
Digital Photographs	Not Hearsay	Direct capture of visual information, no human assertions	Yes
Voice Recordings	Potential Hearsay	Contains human speech that may be offered for truth of statements	Yes
Server Logs	Not Hearsay	Automatically generated by computer systems	Yes
Bank Transaction Records	Not Hearsay	Computer-generated records of transactions	Yes

 

Table 2: Comparative Analysis - Indian Evidence Act vs. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Aspect	Indian Evidence Act 1872	Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
Electronic Records Definition	Limited to computer output (Section 65B)	Expanded to include semiconductor memory, communication devices (Section 63)
Primary Evidence Status	Secondary evidence only	Primary evidence under multiple explanations (Section 57)
Certificate Requirement	Section 65B(4) certificate mandatory	Section 63(4) certificate required
Admissibility Framework	Sections 65A & 65B exclusive	Section 62 & 63 with expanded scope
Hash Value Requirement	Not explicitly required	Explicitly required in certificates
Device Coverage	Computer systems only	Computers, communication devices, semiconductor memory
Non-obstante Clause	Yes (Section 65B begins with non-obstante)	Yes (Section 63 begins with non-obstante)
Authentication Method	Certificate by responsible person	Certificate by party or expert with hash values

 

Key Insights for Legal Practitioners

Hearsay Classification Patterns:

·       Computer-generated records (CDRs, logs, transaction records) are consistently classified as "Not Hearsay"

·       Human-created content (emails, texts, social media posts) are classified as "Potential Hearsay"

·       Automatic recordings (CCTV, digital photos) are "Not Hearsay" despite capturing human activities

Legislative Evolution:

·       BSA 2023 significantly expands the scope of electronic evidence beyond traditional computer systems.

·       The elevation to primary evidence status represents a fundamental shift in how electronic records are treated.

·       Enhanced technical requirements like hash values reflect modern digital forensics standards.

Print Page