Section 63(4) BSA: Supreme Court Clarifies That Part B Is Not Confined to Section 79A Examiners

 

The Supreme Court has now given an important ruling on the validity of Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, decided on 22 May 2026. The decision is significant for every judge and lawyer dealing with electronic evidence, because it examines whether the new statutory requirement of hash value disclosure and expert certification is unconstitutional or merely a necessary safeguard in the digital age.

Background

The Pune Bar Association challenged Section 63(4) BSA and the Schedule appended to it on the ground that the provision creates undue hardship for ordinary litigants. The grievance was directed particularly against Part A, which requires disclosure of the hash value of the electronic record, and Part B, which requires the signature of an expert. It was argued that these preconditions make admissibility of electronic evidence too burdensome and therefore manifestly arbitrary.

Court’s reasoning

The Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenge and held that the provision has a rational nexus with the object of the law. The Court noted that electronic records are susceptible to continuous alteration and manipulation, and that concerns about authenticity and integrity have become more serious with the rise of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. In that backdrop, the Court held that hash value acts like an electronic fingerprint, while expert certification adds an additional layer of assurance to secondary electronic evidence.

The Section 79A controversy

A major issue raised before the Court was whether Part B of the certificate can be signed only by an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The argument was based on a Madras High Court ruling which had taken the view that such notified experts alone could sign Part B, creating concern that the provision may become impractical because only a limited number of such experts are available. This practical difficulty formed the heart of the petitioner’s objection to the working of Section 63(4).

Important clarification

The Supreme Court did not finally decide that Part B can never be restricted to Section 79A examiners, but it made a very important clarification. Reading Section 39(1) and Section 39(2) of the BSA harmoniously, the Court observed that apart from notified examiners, another person having special skill and expertise in computer science or cyber forensics may also be treated as an expert if the court is satisfied on the basis of unimpeachable material. The Court further held that the Madras High Court’s view that only a Section 79A notified expert can sign Part B should not be treated as a binding precedent, while expressly keeping the larger question of law open.

Practical significance

This ruling strengthens the legislative framework for proving electronic records under the BSA and shows that the Supreme Court is not inclined to dilute statutory safeguards merely because they demand greater technical compliance. At the same time, the order offers practical relief by indicating that the field of eligible experts may not be confined only to notified Section 79A examiners in every case. For the legal fraternity, the message is clear: electronic evidence must now be tendered with greater care, better technical preparation, and a sharper focus on authenticity, integrity, and expert support.

Print Page

Supreme Court Clarifies That Part B of BSA Certificate Need Not Be Restricted Only to Section 79A Notified Examiners

 We have perused the cited judgment, wherein the Madras High Court, in a matrimonial case instituted in 2019 inter alia held that the same would be governed by the erstwhile Evidence Act. Thereafter, it proceeded to analyse Part B of the Schedule in Section 63(4) to hold that the certificate by an expert therein must be by an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the IT Act. In doing so, the High Court merely referred to Section 39(2) of the BSA and not sub-section (1). Section 39 deals with admissibility of opinions of experts. Sub-section (1) states when the Court has to form an opinion on a point of foreign law, science or art or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion on that point of persons having special skill in such domain namely foreign law, science or art, or any other field, or in respect of identity of handwriting or finger impressions becomes a relevant fact. Subsection (2) provides when in a proceeding, the Court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the IT Act shall be treated to be that of an expert and be admissible as a relevant fact. {Para 6}

7. If the two sub-sections are read harmoniously, it is possible to hold, in addition to entities notified as Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A, if the Court is satisfied, on the basis of unimpeachable material, that any other person has special skill and expertise in computer science and cyber forensics, opinion of such person may be held relevant as an expert with regard to electronic/digital record and such person may sign Part B of the Schedule as an expert. We are further fortified to make such observation as sub-section (2) of Section 39 (unlike 63(4) and erstwhile 65B) is not prefaced by a non-obstante clause so as to exclude the operation of sub-section (1) from the arena of electronic records. The High Court had deferred adjudication of such issue and directed the State to notify adequate number of persons under Section 79A. Under these circumstances, we hold that the finding of the High Court that Part B must be filled up by an expert notified under Section 79A of the IT Act shall not be treated as a binding precedent.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.599 OF 2026

Pune Bar Association Vs  Union of India and Others 

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To S.63(4) BSA Mandating Hash Value Disclosure For Electronic Evidence

To achieve such objective, Section 63(4) of BSA improved upon the certificate envisaged under the old law by mandating the issuance of a standard-form certificate prescribed in the Schedule which inter alia requires the disclosure of hash value of the electronic/digital record along with a further certification by an expert. Hash value of an electronic data is synonymous with an electronic fingerprint and provides a sure way of identifying and verifying digital data. The necessity of incorporating the hash value of the electronic record in the certificate is thus to ensure its authenticity and integrity, and cannot be said to lack a rational nexus with the object of the Act. Similarly, certification by an expert in Part B provides an additional layer of authenticity to the secondary electronic evidence. For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the new provision has a clear and rational nexus with the object of the law and cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable so as to suffer from the vice of manifest arbitrariness. {Para 4}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.599 OF 2026

Pune Bar Association Vs  Union of India and Others 

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

Print Page

Admissible Yet Unsafe: CCTV, Gait Analysis, and the Judicial Craft of Electronic Evidence

 In State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors., the Supreme Court’s discussion of CCTV footage and gait analysis offers a practical lesson of lasting importance for criminal courts. The decision shows that the law of electronic evidence cannot be reduced to a single question of admissibility. A digital record may be legally receivable in theory, yet still be too weak, too poorly proved, or too compromised in its handling to carry evidentiary weight in practice.

That distinction matters greatly in day-to-day criminal adjudication. Session Judges increasingly encounter prosecutions built around CCTV clips, mobile phone videos, cloned storage devices, extracted pen drives, call data, and expert reports from private or government laboratories. Advocates, in turn, often attack or defend such material at the wrong level. They either argue broad doctrine without addressing the actual source trail, or focus on scattered procedural lapses without explaining how those lapses affect authenticity, continuity, and reliability. The judgment under discussion is valuable because it compels a more disciplined method.

Print Page

Re-Enactment, Self-Incrimination, and the Architecture of Proof: A Critical Reading of Supreme Court judgment State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors.

Supreme Court decision of THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs   PONNUSAMY & ORS, Dated: May 19, 2026, 2026 INSC 507 arising out of the murder of Dr. Subbiah in Chennai presents a dense intersection of conspiracy law, approver testimony, electronic evidence, recoveries under Section 27, and the constitutional limit against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The case travelled from a trial court conviction, including death sentences for several accused, to a complete acquittal by the Madras High Court, and then back to the Supreme Court, which subjected both the evidentiary record and the High Court’s reasoning to close scrutiny.

Case setting

Print Page

“Whose Voice Is It? Lessons from a Malaysian WhatsApp Voice‑Note Case for India’s Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam”

The Malaysian High Court decision in Chuah Soo Peng v Ong Chin Wei is highly instructive for Indian courts interpreting the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), especially on how much proof is needed to link a WhatsApp voice note to an alleged sender. While not binding, its reasoning dovetails with India’s evolving jurisprudence on electronic records—from Anvar P.V. to Arjun Panditrao—and offers a practical, context‑sensitive approach that can be harmonised with sections 62–63 BSA.

Malaysian lesson: context, relationship and probabilities

In Chuah Soo Peng, the Sessions Court demanded technical confirmation (telco records, formal WhatsApp verification) before accepting that a WhatsApp voice note came from the defendant, even though the plaintiff and defendant were close friends and clients, and the plaintiff positively identified the defendant’s voice. The High Court corrected this, holding that in a civil case between well‑known parties, oral identification of the voice, combined with surrounding circumstances (subsequent meeting, contract clause drafted at defendant’s insistence), was sufficient on a “balance of probabilities” without mandatory telco proof.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Important Supreme Court Judgments on electronic evidence

 

1) Supreme Court: Not Required To Play Video Evidence Before Witness Or Transcribe Its Contents For Admissibility

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4041 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4646 of 2025)

Decided On: 15.09.2025

Kailas Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1117,MANU/SC/1283/2025

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/09/supreme-court-not-required-to-play.html

Print Page

A Legal Practitioner's Guide to Electronic Evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

 

1.0 Introduction: The Paradigm Shift from IEA 1872 to BSA 2023

The enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, marks a fundamental evolution in Indian evidentiary law. Formally repealing the colonial-era Indian Evidence Act (IEA) of 1872, the BSA is not merely a procedural update but a comprehensive legislative adaptation to the realities of a society driven by digital communication and data. With 23 Sections Modified, 5 Sections Repealed, and 1 New Section Added, the scale of this overhaul is significant. For legal practitioners, understanding this shift is paramount, as the new law fundamentally re-calibrates how evidence is defined, collected, certified, and presented in court. This analysis will deconstruct the critical changes introduced by the BSA, focusing specifically on the new regime for electronic and digital evidence.

Print Page

Your Digital Life on Trial: 5 Game-Changing Rules in the New Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

 

Introduction

Every day, we generate a massive digital trail. We send a WhatsApp message to a friend, save a document to the cloud, and allow our phone to track our location for navigation. These actions feel routine and private, but have you ever stopped to consider their legal standing? What happens when these digital footprints step out of our personal lives and into a courtroom?

India's legal system has just undergone a seismic shift to answer that very question. The new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, has replaced a legal framework designed for paper and ink in 1872, officially bringing Indian evidence law into the digital age. This isn't just a minor update; it's a fundamental overhaul involving 23 modified sections, 5 repealed sections, and 1 new section compared to the old framework. Here are the five most surprising and impactful takeaways from this new act.

Print Page

Supreme Court: WhatsApp messages are virtual verbal communications which requires cumulative deciphering of context

 The High Court by its order dated 30.08.2019 affirmed the order of injunction holding that the communication of acceptance to the draft MoU sent by e-mail dated 30.03.2018 coupled with the exchange of WhatsApp correspondences between the parties amounted to a concluded contract. {Para 4}

The WhatsApp messages which are virtual verbal communications are matters of evidence with regard to their meaning and its contents to be proved during trial by evidence-in-chief and cross examination. The e-mails and WhatsApp messages will have to be read and understood cumulatively to decipher whether there was a concluded contract or not. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9346 of 2019 

Decided On: 06.01.2020

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited and Ors. Vs. KS Infraspace LLP Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.

Author: Navin Sinha, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0003/2020.

Print Page

CCTV in Muddemal Doesn't Mean 'No Copies': Supreme Court's Clear Mandate

 Subtitle: When police misuse “material object” status to avoid furnishing electronic evidence contents under Section 207 CrPC 

OPENING: THE SYSTEMATIC ABUSE IN YOUR COURT

It happens in hundreds of courts across India every week.

A pen drive containing CCTV footage of a crime arrives at the police station. The investigating officer seizes it, documents it, and files a chargesheet saying the video shows the accused committing the crime. The pen drive then goes into the muddemal (evidence room) of the court.

Print Page

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE & CHAIN OF CUSTODY : Why Your Court’s Computer Room Must Never Touch Electronic Evidence?

 

A Judicial Guide to Protecting Digital Evidence in the Age of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

OPENING: THE OPERATIONAL TRAP MOST COURTS FALL INTO

Your muddemal room receives a pen drive containing critical CCTV footage. The prosecutor and defence counsel walk into your chambers and ask the same simple question: “Your Honour, can your court’s computer room just copy this for us?”

Your administrative officer is standing by, computer room staff are available, and it seems like a five-minute fix.

Print Page

LLM Practical Training: Law teaching on latest Supreme court judgment on Electronic Evidence and Video Recordings

Good morning, everyone. Today, we’ll journey together through the fascinating world of video recordings as evidence in Indian courts. By the end, you’ll understand how a simple video from a raid became the centerpiece of a Supreme Court landmark ruling in Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1117).

1. The Raid That Sparked a Legal Story

Early one morning in Akot, Maharashtra, officers conducted a raid under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. They seized 147 kg of ganja and recorded every move with a professional videographer’s camera. That continuous footage captured suspects entering a field, officers searching rooms, and the moment contraband was placed into sealed bags.

Students, imagine watching that video and knowing it’s the exact sequence of events—no memories to fade, no confusion over who said what. But how do we ensure the court trusts this video?

2. Section 65B: Turning Video into Legal Gold

Under the Evidence Act, electronic records—like videos—are considered documents. However, to admit them, we rely on Section 65B, which says:

·       Certificate Requirement (Section 65B(4))

A responsible person (for example, the videographer) signs a certificate explaining:

a.       Which device made the recording.

b.      When and how it was recorded.

c.       Any steps taken to process or transfer the file.

Once that certificate is attached, the video becomes a fully recognized document in court—no longer just pixels but a legal record.

3. Keeping the Video Untouched: Chain of Custody

Before certification, the video must be preserved carefully:

·       Seal the original storage media (SD card or DVR) the moment it’s taken from the camera.

·       Log every time someone handles or copies the file.

·       Store it securely so no one can tamper with the recording.

This chain of custody record proves the video is the same from camera to courtroom.

4. The High Court’s Roadblock: Unnecessary Hurdles

At trial, the video—backed by its certificate—helped secure convictions. But the Bombay High Court ordered a retrial, arguing that:

1.       The video had to be played during each witness’s testimony.

2.       Each witness needed to narrate every action they saw on camera.

3.       Transcripts of the entire footage were mandatory.

They treated the video like a book that needed someone to read every page aloud—a requirement never intended by law.

5. The Supreme Court’s Restoration: Let the Video Speak

The Supreme Court stepped in and clarified:

1.       Certified Video = Document

A video with a valid Section 65B(4) certificate stands on its own as documentary evidence. No witness narration or transcript is required for admissibility.

2.       Optional Explanation

If a judge finds part of the video hard to understand, they may call someone to explain specific segments under Section 391 CrPC. This is a discretionary power, not a blanket rule.

3.       Retrial Only for True Emergencies

Retrials are reserved for serious errors—like courts lacking jurisdiction or parties being denied key evidence—rather than procedural hiccups in video presentation.

4.      No Transcript Mandate

Forcing full transcripts would bog down every case with unnecessary work, shifting focus from truth to technicalities.

6. Why This Matters for You

As future law graduates:

·       Remember that Section 65B turns electronic records into documents—focus on understanding certificate requirements.

·       Appreciate the importance of chain of custody for every piece of evidence.

·       Recognize the Supreme Court’s balanced approach: videos need certification but not endless narration.

·       Understand that retrials are exceptional; procedural errors alone won’t automatically earn a second trial.

By mastering these principles, you’ll be well-equipped to analyze and argue cases involving digital evidence. The Kailash judgment ensures that when the future calls for cameras in courtrooms, the law is ready to let video evidence speak clearly and fairly.

Print Page

Rajasthan HC: Section 65B Certificate Valid Only from Original Recording Device Owner

The Rajasthan High Court recently delivered an important ruling regarding the issuance of certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is crucial for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in court. The Court emphasized that a Section 65B certificate must be issued by the person who owned or operated the original device on which the electronic record was first created. It cannot be validly issued by someone whose device merely contains a transferred copy of that record.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a challenge to a Rent Tribunal order where the respondents submitted electronic evidence stored in a pen drive and compact disc. The petitioner argued that the original recording was made on a third party’s device — specifically, Rajat Sancheti’s device — but the Section 65B certificate was issued by respondent no. 2, whose device only held a later transferred copy of the recording. The petitioner submitted that under the law, only the original device owner could issue the certificate to authenticate the evidence.

Legal Precedents Cited

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the matter, relied on authoritative Supreme Court rulings in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal. These rulings firmly establish that the certificate under Section 65B must originate from the person in control of the device on which the electronic record was originally created, which ensures the authenticity and reliability of digital evidence.

Court’s Holding and Impact

The Court held that the certificate issued by respondent no. 2 concerning the transferred copy was invalid and could not render the electronic evidence admissible. However, the Court left a procedural opportunity for the respondents to file a proper and valid certificate issued by the actual owner of the original recording device, thereby allowing the evidence to potentially remain admissible if corrected.

This judgment underscores the critical importance of complying strictly with Section 65B requirements as laid down by the Supreme Court, especially regarding the chain of custody and certification of electronic evidence. Practitioners must ensure that certificates authenticating electronic records emanate from the original device’s controlling person to withstand scrutiny in judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

In the digital era where electronic evidence is increasingly common, the Rajasthan High Court’s clarification provides much-needed guidance and robustness to the procedural requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. This decision serves as a reminder that the integrity of electronic evidence hinges on proper certification from the original source, maintaining the evidentiary standards crucial for justice.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12210/2025

Shwetabh Singhal,  Vs M/s J.k And Sons, 

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order: 09/09/2025.

Citation: [2025:RJ-JP:36375]

Print Page

The Supreme Court's Definitive Ruling on Video Evidence Admissibility: Kailash vs. State of Maharashtra Sets New Standards for Digital Evidence in Criminal Trial

 

The Supreme Court's recent judgment in Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1117) has delivered a landmark clarification on the admissibility of video recordings in criminal proceedings, setting crucial precedents for how courts should handle electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This decision, delivered by Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan on September 15, 2025, fundamentally reshapes the legal landscape surrounding digital evidence while reinforcing the exceptional nature of re-trial orders in criminal cases.

Read full judgment here: click here

The Case Background: NDPS Raid and Video Documentation

Print Page

Supreme Court: Not Required To Play Video Evidence Before Witness Or Transcribe Its Contents For Admissibility

As far as admissibility of video recording i.e., Compact Disc (CD) is concerned, the author of the video i.e., SW No. 2 not only deposed that he recorded the video, but he also gave a certificate, as contemplated Under Sub-section (4) of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, to make the CD admissible in evidence. Interestingly, the High Court did not dispute that the electronic record was duly exhibited as there existed a certificate envisaged Under Sub-section (4) of Section 65B. However, strangely, the High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the video. In our view, this is a strange and unacceptable reasoning for the simple reason that the CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the Court to draw appropriate inference(s). No doubt, there may be an occasion where to appreciate contents of a video an explanatory statement may be needed, but that would depend on the facts of a case. However, it is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video. Besides that, in the instant case, the search and seizure operation was sought to be proved by oral evidence of witnesses. The video, therefore, was perhaps to corroborate the oral testimony. Even the judgment of the trial court makes it clear that the video was played in court in the presence of all Accused as well as both sides counsels and the presiding officer, upon seeing the video, could spot and confirm the presence of witnesses as well as the Accused at the time of search and seizure. In such circumstances, in our view, a re-trial is not required only to explain the video. {Para 19}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4041 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4646 of 2025)

Decided On: 15.09.2025

Kailas Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1117,MANU/SC/1283/2025

Print Page

Sessions Judge’s Power to Examine Electronic Evidence in CrPC 156(3) Revision: Clarification from Bombay HC

 Background and Case Snapshot

In a pivotal judgment delivered on June 5th, 2023, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) addressed a recurring procedural question confronting criminal practitioners and judges: Can a Sessions Court, during revision proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC, view evidence (specifically electronic evidence like a CD) that is not yet

“admissible” under the Indian Evidence Act? The controversy stemmed from Sudhir and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 76 of 2023).

Print Page

From Silicon to Courtroom: How Semiconductor Technology is Revolutionizing Legal Evidence

 Electronic Records as Legal Evidence

Semiconductor integrated circuits and memory play a crucial role in modern evidence recording and court proceedings through their function as storage mediums for digital evidence. Under Indian law, electronic records stored in semiconductor memory are now recognized as admissible evidence in courts.

The Evidence Act was amended by virtue of Section 92 of the IT Act to include "electronic record" within the definition of evidence, thereby allowing for the admissibility of digital evidence. This amendment specifically recognizes that electronic records stored in semiconductor memories, in addition to those on paper and stored/recorded/copied in optical or magnetic media, are valid forms of evidence.

Semiconductor Memory as Evidence Storage

Print Page

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

Print Page

What are the implications of not producing and proving CDR records in court?

 In legal proceedings, the burden of proof lies heavily on the party making allegations, particularly in cases involving claims of ill-treatment. The Indian Evidence Act provides a structured approach to how evidence must be presented and substantiated in court. This article explores the implications of communication methods between victims and their parents, particularly focusing on telephonic and written communications, and the necessity of producing documentary evidence to support claims.

When a victim communicates instances of ill-treatment to their parents, the nature and medium of that communication play a crucial role in establishing proof. If such communication occurs via phone calls or written letters, it is essential to produce tangible evidence to substantiate these claims. According to Sections 59 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence can only support facts that do not pertain to the contents of documents. Therefore, if a victim were to convey their distress through a letter, the letter itself must be presented in court as primary evidence; oral testimony regarding its existence would be inadmissible.

Print Page