Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023: Forensic Evidence in Court

Start with the governing proceeding and evidence question. The BSA addresses relevance, proof, presumptions and examination of witnesses, among other matters. Describing it as light renumbering can hide material changes and lead to use of an unsuitable form or an incorrect legal proposition.

Electronic-expert recognition did not begin from nothing in the BSA: the earlier Act already had section 45A concerning an Examiner of Electronic Evidence. Section 39 must be read on its own terms, including “any other field” in subsection (1), rather than an invented statutory reference to footprints.

Relevance does not guarantee that an opinion is correct or decisive. Ask whether the person has relevant expertise, whether the method addresses the question and whether the reasons and limits are explained. A legal route for receiving material and its scientific probative value remain distinct questions.

A technically accurate result needs a relevant question and sufficient context. Identifying a substance, generating a DNA profile and explaining how a trace arrived are different tasks. A result does not become proof of involvement merely because it appears in a laboratory report.

For police statements and recovery evidence, keep the following distinctions clear:

• The rules governing confessions are not identical to the rules governing every admission or statement.
• Police-confession and custody restrictions must be read with their actual statutory conditions.
• The discovery proviso is within section 23(2), not section 27 BSA. It concerns only the portion distinctly related to the discovered fact.
• A recovery still needs its own documented circumstances and scientific assessment; the proviso does not prove that a recovered item was used in an offence.

Preserve who said what, the conditions of the account and what was actually recovered. Do not treat the discovery proviso as admitting the whole narrative or establishing every allegation. The handling history includes relevant earlier actions and transfers; it does not begin afresh because an exhibit is described as a recovery.

A scientist can examine a recovered object without adopting every statement about its source or use. Distinguish observed condition, scientific result, supplied history and any inference that depends on that history.

Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) rejected involuntary administration of the specified narcoanalysis, polygraph and BEAP techniques. Crucially, even consent did not make the test results themselves admissible. The judgment distinguished subsequently discovered information or material from voluntary testing, assessed under the then discovery provision and safeguards. “Voluntary results are automatically corroborative evidence” is therefore misleading.

Read that constitutional decision in its context, and distinguish test responses from independently examined recovered material. The separate BNSS and BNS lessons explain procedural authority and offences; they do not remove constitutional or evidential safeguards.

Section 39(1) concerns persons specially skilled in the relevant field, while subsection (2) specifically addresses the Examiner of Electronic Evidence under IT Act section 79A. A qualification, job title or institutional affiliation alone does not explain why the particular opinion should be accepted.

1. Establish Relevant Expertise
   Explain training, experience and the scope of the task. Disclose limits instead of claiming competence across every forensic discipline.
2. Expose the Method
   Identify the material, procedure, relevant validation, quality controls and records needed to understand the result.
3. Explain the Reasons
   Connect observations to the conclusion and discuss uncertainty, contrary findings and reasonable alternatives.
4. Permit Scrutiny
   Answer questions about assumptions, provenance, methods and limits clearly. Identify errors or changes rather than defend a conclusion at any cost.
5. Leave the Legal Decision to the Court
   The opinion assists assessment. Its weight depends on the reasons and circumstances; it is not binding merely because it comes from an expert.

The cases below illustrate scrutiny of reasons, rather than a rule that all expert evidence is inherently weak:

Murari Lal v State of MP

Murari Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh rejected an inflexible rule that handwriting-expert evidence must always be substantially corroborated. Reasons require careful scrutiny and other evidence matters; corroboration may be sought where appropriate. The Supreme Court reiterated the discussion in its 3 March 2025 decision, 2025 INSC 309.

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v Regency Hospital

Use Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v Regency Hospital as a contextual discussion of expert assistance and relevant skill, not as authority for a universal corroboration requirement. Do not reduce different domains and cases to one rule about how often an opinion can support a finding.

US Frye and Daubert terminology should not be imported as though it were the wording of BSA section 39. Equally, the absence of an identically named hearing does not mean opinions escape scrutiny. Identify the applicable Indian provision and decision rather than rank jurisdictions by assumed strictness.

For an international comparison, separate the governing court rules from scientific evaluation. A method’s validation, limitations and appropriate reporting matter even when legal tests differ. This lesson’s Indian authorities do not decide admissibility in US federal, UK or other proceedings.

Section 63 and the Schedule must be read together. The BSA certificate is not merely the former section 65B wording under a new number: the prescribed form includes Part A and an expert’s Part B, with hash information. Determine the proof route for the record actually submitted and the proceeding, rather than assume all digital objects are legally identical copies.

Prepare the certificate from the statutory form and the actual production history:

• Identify the electronic record and its source, and explain how the submitted output was produced.
• Record relevant device and operating information using what the certifier can properly establish.
• Complete the applicable prescribed components, including the expert component and required hash information / report.
• Link the certificate to the submitted files and supporting records. A senior title does not replace knowledge, appropriate expertise or the relevant statutory role.

Anvar P V v P K Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar concern the earlier Act’s section 65B. Arjun Panditrao reaffirmed the certificate requirement for the computer-output route, rejected the contrary Shafhi Mohammad approach and discussed matters including original-device proof and obtaining certificates. Read the judgment’s qualifications rather than summarise it as “every digital object without a certificate is never evidence”.

In Pune Bar Association v Union of India, W.P.(C) 599/2026, the Supreme Court’s 22 May 2026 order addressed the BSA certificate and expert issue. It declined to treat a section-79A-only restriction as binding and discussed persons with demonstrated computer-science and cyber-forensics skill, while expressly leaving the legal question open. Do not present that limited disposition as a conclusive universal eligibility test.

There is no sound universal rule that only a laboratory section head may sign, or that an investigating officer can never complete a relevant part. Establish the actual record source, production process, certifier’s role, expert competence and applicable directions. Use the current prescribed form rather than signing statements outside personal knowledge.

A certificate, hash comparison and custody history serve related but different purposes. Matching hashes can support byte-level agreement with a reference; they do not prove a recording’s truth, a speaker’s identity, lawful collection or everything that happened before the reference was created. Document each required foundation separately.

BSA section 142 defines examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination; section 143 addresses their order and scope. Section 146 concerns leading questions. Read exceptions and the court’s powers rather than describe every stage as a rigid script.

Useful preparation follows the evidence and the question, rather than predictions about which courtroom attack is most common:

• Review the report and supporting technical records, including relevant controls, instrument checks and limitations.
• Be able to explain what was received, examined, changed and returned, and any provenance discrepancy.
• Distinguish personal observations from supplied histories and assumptions.
• State the scope of a conclusion and any material correction honestly; do not conceal a new limitation to stay inside an old report.
• Answer impartially and ask for clarification where a question misstates the method or result.

Keep each authority attached to its actual proposition: Murari Lal rejects an automatic corroboration rule; Arjun Panditrao addresses section 65B with important qualifications; Selvi distinguishes prohibited involuntary testing, test responses and later discoveries. A case name is not a substitute for checking the governing statute and relevant holding.