A WhatsApp conversation, CCTV recording, email, call recording or location history can become key evidence in a criminal case. But producing a digital file in court does not automatically make it admissible or reliable.
That distinction matters. A chat may appear to show an admission. A CCTV clip may seem to place an accused at the scene. Yet the court can still ask: Where did the record come from? Has it been altered? Who handled it? And has the law governing electronic records been followed?
In India, these questions are now addressed primarily by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which came into force on July 1, 2024. Sections 61 to 63 deal specifically with electronic or digital records.
Electronic evidence is evidence, but it must be proved properly
Section 61 makes clear that an electronic or digital record cannot be rejected simply because it is digital. Subject to Section 63, it has the same legal effect as another document. Section 62 provides that its contents are to be proved in accordance with Section 63.
Under Section 57, an electronic record produced from proper custody is treated as primary evidence unless disputed. The provision also recognises certain electronically stored files and simultaneously stored video recordings as primary evidence.
This matters for CCTV. If the original recording is properly preserved and produced from the relevant system, the position can be different from a phone recording of someone else’s screen or a copied clip taken from a messaging app.
What Section 63 requires
Section 63 addresses the admissibility of electronic records when a computer output is relied on. It covers records that are printed, copied or stored in electronic media and makes them admissible when specified conditions are satisfied.
In simple terms, the record should come from a computer or communication device used regularly for the relevant activity; the information should ordinarily have been fed into the system; the device should have been functioning properly, subject to the statutory qualification about accuracy; and the output should reproduce or derive from information fed into the system in the ordinary course.
For many digital records, the key procedural safeguard is the certificate under Section 63(4).
The certificate must identify the electronic record, explain how it was produced and provide relevant details about the device or devices involved. It must also address the statutory conditions and follow the form prescribed in the BSA Schedule.
Why a screenshot of a chat may not be enough
Consider a WhatsApp conversation relied upon by the prosecution.
A screenshot can show names, numbers, timestamps and messages. But a screenshot alone does not necessarily establish that the conversation is genuine, complete or untampered with. It may omit earlier or later messages, contain altered images, or fail to show how the copy was created.
The safer approach is to preserve the original source, identify the device or digital source, maintain the record in a reliable form and comply with Section 63 where the evidence is being tendered as a computer output.
What about CCTV footage?
CCTV evidence creates similar questions. The issue is not simply whether the video appears to show the accused.
The prosecution may need to establish where the footage came from, which system created it, whether the relevant portion is complete, whether the date and time settings were accurate, and whether the recording was preserved without alteration.
A copied pen drive containing a CCTV clip can raise a different evidentiary question from the original recording system or a properly preserved forensic copy.
Recent Indian decisions reflect this approach. In July 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that copies of electronic records, including CCTV footage and photographs generated from that footage, require the certificate contemplated under Section 63 before they can be read in evidence.
The older Supreme Court decisions under the Indian Evidence Act remain important for understanding the underlying principle. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and later Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Supreme Court treated the statutory certificate requirement for secondary electronic evidence as mandatory. The BSA has now moved that rule into its own Section 63 framework.
Hash values and the new certification framework
The BSA Schedule also requires disclosure of the hash value of the electronic record in the prescribed certificate.
A hash is essentially a digital fingerprint of a file. If the underlying data changes, its hash value will ordinarily change too. This gives the court a technical way to test the integrity of the record being relied upon.
This requirement was challenged before the Supreme Court in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India. On May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 63(4) and recognised the role of hash values in protecting the authenticity and integrity of electronic evidence.
The Court also clarified that the person signing the expert part of the certificate is not necessarily limited to an examiner notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act. A person with specialised skill and expertise in computer science or cyber forensics may also qualify, subject to the court being satisfied about that expertise.
Admissibility is not the same as reliability
A certificate does not turn questionable evidence into unquestionable evidence.
The court can still examine whether the record is authentic, what its source is, whether it is complete and whether there are reasons to doubt its accuracy. A 2026 Bengaluru decision noted that admissibility and evidentiary value are distinct, and that even a Section 63 certificate does not cure every problem concerning source, integrity or reliability.
That distinction is critical. A court may admit a digital record and still decide that it deserves little weight. A message may be legally admissible but disputed as to authorship. A CCTV clip may be genuine but inconclusive because the angle does not clearly identify the person shown.
The practical lesson
For investigators, prosecutors and defence lawyers, digital evidence should be handled carefully from the moment it is collected, not only when it reaches the witness box.
Preserve the original source. Document who collected and handled it. Avoid unnecessary copying or editing. Record relevant device details. Generate and preserve hash values where applicable. Obtain the Section 63 certificate in the prescribed form. Be prepared to explain the chain from the original device to the exhibit placed before the court.
Digital evidence can be compelling. But in a criminal trial, what matters is not merely what a screen appears to show. The court must also be satisfied that the record is legally admissible and sufficiently trustworthy to be relied upon.
That is what turns a chat log or CCTV clip from a digital file into evidence.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up-to-date. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action based on the information provided. The authors and publishers disclaim any liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of reliance on this article. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.