Digital Evidence and Cybercrime: Admissibility and Challenges under Indian Law

ABSTRACT

The advancement of information technology has transformed the nature of crime and how law is enforced, making digital evidence an important part of prosecuting cybercrimes. In India, the admissibility of digital evidence is mainly governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. 

However, the nature of electronic records being volatile, intangible, and easily changeable presents unique legaland technical challenges. Judicial decisions, such as those in Navjot Sandhu and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, have greatly influenced how Section 65B of the Evidence Act is interpreted, which requires electronic evidence to be certified. Despite this, there are still major challenges, like difficulty in getting certificates from third-party service providers, dealing with legal issues that cross borders, and a lack of technical knowledge. This article thoroughly examines the legal structure, judicial changes around digital evidence in India, and suggests ways to strengthen the system through legal reforms, improving forensic capabilities, and making the judiciary more aware.

KEYWORDS: Digital Evidence, Cybercrime, Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, Information Technology Act, 2000, Admissibility of Electronic Records, Cyber Forensics, Indian Judicial Pronouncements.

INTRODUCTION

The digital age has brought both new opportunities and complex challenges for the legal system. With the rise of information and communication technologies, more crimes are now happening online, leading to the concept of cybercrimes. These crimes include hacking, phishing, identity theft, cyberstalking, and the sharing of inappropriate material. Unlike traditional crimes, cybercrimes don’t have a physical location, can be committed anonymously, and often leave digital evidence behind. However, since digital evidence is not physically present and can be easily altered, it requires strict rules for preserving and proving its authenticity. This raises major concerns about its use in court, where questions of reliability, accuracy, and following the correct procedures are key.

In India, the recognition of electronic records under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and their admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, marked a big shift in adapting old rules to the digital world. However, the requirement of Section 65B certification, along with the technical limitations of law enforcement agencies, has led to many legal discussions and practical challenges. Judicial rulings have moved between being flexible and rigid, showing the ongoing need to balance following procedures with achieving justice.

This article explores the legal rules that apply to digital evidence in India, looks at how courts have changed their stance, and examines the difficulties in prosecuting cybercrimes. It also suggests ways to improve investigative and judicial processes so that digital evidence can be used to deliver justice in today’s technology-driven world.

Meaning and Nature of Digital Evidence

Digital evidence includes data stored on computers, phones, servers, flash drives, CDs, CCTV footage, emails, social media messages, logs, and metadata. Unlike traditional evidence, digital evidence is not physical, can be easily copied, and is vulnerable to changes, making its preservation and verification essential.

Key Characteristics:

• Intangible form – exists as binary data.
• Easily replicable – can be copied without any loss in quality.
• Susceptible to tampering – a strict custody chain is necessary for verification.
• Technology-dependent – needs expert interpretation to be understood.

Legal Framework in India:-

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 65A & 65B: These special rules cover electronic records.
Section 65B says electronic records are admissible if they come with a valid certificate that includes device details and how the data was collected.
Section 45A: Admissibility of opinions from electronic evidence experts.
Section 22A & 67A: Rules for proving electronic records and digital signatures.

B. Information Technology Act, 2000

This law recognizes electronic records and digital signatures as legally valid.
Sections 43, 65, 66, 66C, 66D, and 67 deal with cybercrimes like hacking, identity theft, fraud through impersonation, and the sharing of inappropriate content online.

C. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Sections 91 and 92 allow the use of documents, including electronic records, as evidence. Section 164 empowers the recording of digital confessions and other types of digital evidence.

Judicial Interpretation

Indian courts have played a major role in shaping the rules around the admissibility of electronic evidence. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Supreme Court allowed the use of electronic records without a Section 65B certificate, showing more flexibility. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), the court reversed the earlier decision and made it clear that a Section 65B certificate is necessary for electronic records to be admissible.
In Shafi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), the court made a slight change, allowing oral evidence if the party cannot provide a certificate. 

In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), a constitutional bench reaffirmed that a Section 65B certificate is required unless the device is in court custody. This evolving judicial view shows the ongoing conflict between following procedural rules and ensuring justice in cybercrime trials.

Challenges in Admissibility of Digital Evidence

• Technical Complexity: Courts, police, and lawyers often lack the technical knowledge needed to deal with metadata, encryption, and forensic recovery. 
• Section 65B Compliance: Getting a valid certificate is difficult when the evidence is stored on third-party platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, or Google.
• Authenticity and Integrity: Digital data can be changed, leading to doubts about its reliability. Maintaining a chain of custody is important, but it is often not followed.
• Cross-Border Jurisdiction: Cybercrimes often involve servers and data stored abroad, requiring mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), which are slow and complicated.
• Delay in Forensic Analysis: Limited access to cyber forensic labs and a backlog of cases cause delays in investigations.
• Privacy vs. Investigation: Accessing digital data for evidence can conflict with Article 21 (Right to Privacy), as seen in the Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case.
• Dark Web and Encryption: Crimes on the dark web and encrypted communications present major challenges in collecting and proving digital evidence. 

Emerging Trends and Recommendations 

• Capacity Building: Training police, prosecutors, and judges in cyber forensics is essential. 
• Expansion of Cyber Labs: Set up more advanced forensic labs to speed up investigations.
• Legislative Clarity: Amend Section 65B to address the practical issues of getting certificates from third-party custodians.
• International Cooperation: Enhance MLATs and grow rapid cross-border information sharing frameworks.
• Chain of Custody Protocols: Generate unchanging laws for the management of digital proof to assure its dependability.
• Judicial Sensitisation: Inspires the innovation of limited cybercrime courts or steady benches.
• Balancing Privacy and Security: Any boost in examination reigns must be cautiously handled with powerful protection to avoid abuse of surveillance instruments.

Conclusion

Digital evidence has become essential in prosecuting cybercrimes in India. Although the legitimate network admits its utilization, accurate process, facility innovation, and outcome with the government persists to produce it remains challenging to utilize efficiently. Courts have relied on discovering a halfway point between being careful and ensuring clear equity, but challenges still exist.

As cybercrimes grow large and further evolve, India’s laws fail to adapt to ensure digital proof is genuine, reliable, and unchallenging to gain, without breaching elementary rights. The country necessarily fresh laws, better innovation, and powerful foundations to handle this dispute.

REFERENCES

• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstracthttps://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
• AN-ANALYSIS-OF-THE-ADMISSIBILITY-OF-ELECTRONIC-EVIDENCE. Pdf The decision in Arjun Panditrao: Admissibility of electronic evidence in India continues to face hurdles, SCC Times (June 7, 2021), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/06/07/
• Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act: The Verdict of the Apex Court, (Aug. 25, 2020), https://ksandk.com/litigation/section-65b-of-indian-evidence-act http://jfmr.com/research-paper.php?id=54750&utm.
• https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-law-and-society/article/paper-in-the-age-of-the-digital-the-curious-case-of-65b-certificates-in-india.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suhas_Katti_v._Tamil_Nadu.