0

Bharaitya Sakshya Bill, 2023 : Major changes as regards to documents and electronic record

Introduction :

 

The union government of India in August 2023 proposed three bills which plan to change the criminal laws of the country. It also includes the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is now likely to be the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The new bill introduces the ambit of electronic evidence and secondary evidence in a court of law. The definition of secondary evidence is expanded, including written evidence.

Following are the major changes made in the new bill.

S.NO Nature Indian Evidence Act Bharatia Sakshya Abhiniyam
1 Short title The Indian Evidence Act, 1972 – S(1) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – S(1)
2 Application Whole of India – S(1) Applies to all judicial proceedings before any court except cases in front of an arbitrator. – S(1)
3 Documents S(3) – Means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one means. The document is inclusive of electronic and digital records. – S(2)(1)
4 Evidence All statements the court permits including electronic record which is called as documentary evidence – S(3) Evidence is inclusive of statements or any information given electronically or digitally -Section 2(1)
5 IT Act definitions Omitted – S(3) Whatsoever terms used as per the IT act will be referred to the Act itself. – S(2)
6 Confessions S(28) and S(29) were omitted which spoke about confessions made under coercion or promise of secrecy. Proviso clause which amalgamated both S(28) and S(29) together – Section 22
7 Relevancy of statements Colonial references were removed – S(37) Courts can now form opinions of a public fact based on electronic records or digital information. S(31)
8 Relevancy of statements with respect to any information contained in law books The law book should be published or printed under the authority of the Government – S(38) Addition of law books in e-form or digital form which the court can take into consideration. – S(32)
9 Facts of which court must take judicial notice Colonial references such as acts passed by the Parliament of the UK, Proceedings of the parliament of UK, accession and the sign manual of  the sovereign of UK or Ireland were omitted – S(57)

 

The court shall take notice of such as law including territorial operation, international treaties, conventions, parliament or state legislatures included – S(52)
10 Primary evidence Section 62 – The scope of primary evidence was widened Section 57 :

1. If an electronic or digital record is stored, and multiple copies are made of such files, each such copy would be regarded as primary evidence, provided there is an uniformity with the original document.

2. If electronic evidence is produced through custody, it will be considered as a primary evidence

3. Video recording which is recorded and transmitted is primary evidence

4. Temporary files are primary evidences if they are electronic in nature.

12 Secondary evidence Certified copies, copies from the original, oral documents were secondary evidence – S(63) Oral admissions, Written admissions, evidence of a person who has examined a document and is also skilled to examine such documents was added to the already existing scope of secondary evidence – S(58)
13 Admissibility of electronic record or digital signature N/A Treats electronic evidence as part of the documentary evidence- they have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as paper records.
14 Admissibility of electronic record S(65B)(3) – storage of documents in multiple devices – omitted 1.     Information contained in Semiconductor memory which is produced by a communication device or recorded in any other form was added in Section 65B(1), subsequently renamed as Section 63

2.     The information can be stored in standalone mode, on a computer system or computer network or a computer resource or an intermediary.

15 Public and private documents Covered under S(74) – Public documents which are publicly available such as records forming the sovereign, tribunals, public officers etc and any other documents are private documents as per S(75) Public and private documents were covered in one Section – S(74)
16 Gazette publication in electronic form The court shall presume genuineness of every gazetter publication in electronic form Included digital record in its scope

Conclusion :

 

The major changes done in the Bill was in the format of the Act itself, such as numbering and clubbing redundant provisions together. Another major change done was the inclusion of digital records, electronic signatures and electronic records under the scope of documents which are admissible.

It is primitive to note that the Bill is in line with the Information Technology Act which presupposes the electronic record as a document itself.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

References :

 

  1. The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023: An Overview of the changes to Indian Evidence Act, 18721 (3/3) – https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8ca4eb70-8e3f-4da8-a3a9-61b28e6e2aaa
  2. Major Changes Made in the Bharatia Sakshya Act, 2023, as regards Documents – https://indianlawlive.net/2024/01/17/major-changes-made-in-the-bharatia-sakshya-act-1923-as-regards-documents/
  3. Bharatiya Sakshya Bill: Implications of Proposed Changes to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – https://www.nls.ac.in/blog/bharatiya-sakshya-bill-implications-of-proposed-changes-to-the-indian-evidence-act-1872/

0

Calcutta High Court held that when documentary evidence is available the oral testimony of witness is not sufficient to rebut its probative value.

Case Title: Minati Bhadra & Ors. Vs Dilip Kr. Bhadra & Ors.

Case No: S.A. 406 of 2016

Decided on: 19th October, 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury

 

Facts of the Case

This appeal challenges the judgement and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad.

The plaintiff, son of Chabi Rani Bhadra and Aswini Bhadra, filed the suit for partition stating, inter alia, that Chabi Rani Bhadra was the original owner of the suit property which was acquired by purchase and Chabi Rani died intestate on 15th March, 1984 and she was survived by her husband Aswini and son Dilip Kumar Bhadra who thus acquired the property by inheritance.

Aswini Bhadra entered into her second marriage. His second wife, Minati Bhadra, bears him two children: a son named Swadhin Kumar Bhadra and a daughter named Payel Munmun Bhadra. Following the birth of defendant no. 3, Swadhin Kumar Bhadra, the plaintiff’s stepmother’s conduct towards him underwent a radical transformation, and she began inciting Aswini against the plaintiff. Aswini Kumar Bhadra passed away on March 12, 2003, leaving behind his widow, defendant number 1, and plaintiff and defendant number 3, who were his sons and defendant number 2, who was his sole daughter.

After the demise of Chabi Rani Bhadra the plaintiff acquired the half share in the suit property and he acquired 1/8th share by way of inheritance after the demise of Aswini Kumar Bhadra.  Seeking peaceful co-ownership with the defendants failed due to their denial of his rights. Defendant 1 claims sole ownership through a purchase.

According to defendants, the plaintiff was not the biological son of Chabi Rani Bhadra, but was the son of Ashwini’s elder brother.

Legal Provisions

Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Opinion on relationship, when relevant.—When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869) or in prosecutions under section 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Illustrations

  1. The question is, whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant.
  2. The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The fact that A was always treated as such by members of the family, is relevant. Comments Contradiction in evidence of relationship of witness of triffle nature, not material in a partition suit; Gowhari Das v. Santilata Singh, AIR 1999 Ori 61.

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Relevancy of entry in public 1[record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty.—An entry in any public or other official book, register or 1[record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or 1[record or an electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact.

Issues

  • Whether Dilip, the plaintiff, was the biological son of Ashwini?
  • What would happen if there is conflict between the document admissible under Section 35 and oral evidence as to conduct under Section 50?

Court analysis and decision

The High court took referral to supreme court case like MOHD. SALIM VS. SHAMSUDEEN (2019) 4 SCC 130, M. YOGENDRA VS. LEELAMMA N. (2009) 15 SCC 184 to come to the conclusion that when documentary evidence is available the oral testimony of D.W. 2 is not sufficient to rebut the probative value of Exhibits – 7, 8, 8/1 and 9 (the Admit Card, Mark Sheet of Board of Secondary Education wherein Aswini has been depicted as father of Dilip Bhadra, the plaintiff). Based on this it can be said that Dilip was not the biological son of Aswini.

The Calcutta High Court Judge, therefore, was of the view that the oral testimony of D.W. 2 is not sufficient to outweigh the evidentiary value of Exhibits, which unerringly indicate the relationship between Aswini and Dilip as father and son. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned.

The appeal does not merit any consideration and is dismissed, however, without cost.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Written by- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement