By Anika Mardiah Chowdhury
Digital evidence can be defined as corroborative information stored or transmitted in digital forms like data, photographs, DVDs, e-mail, and others. When any sequence of a crime is recorded or stored in digitalization, the question arises as to whether they can be used in judicial proceedings.
In Bangladesh, there are no specific or direct regulations for the admission of digital evidence in a judicial proceeding in each case. Special laws like the Information and Communication Technology Act of 2006 and the Digital Security Act of 2018 have been enacted, but they cover only specific areas.
Now, let’s analyze some laws, such as the Evidence Act of 1872 and the Penal Code of 1860. However, they do not have explicit provisions for recognizing or approving digital evidence and its admissibility in judicial proceedings. They contain the scope of judicial interpretation, which may allow for admissibility.
Firstly, let’s analyze the Evidence Act of 1872. It states “any mat” er expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks” under “the definition of “Document” ary Evidence” under “section 3. Also, in the illustration of section 3 states that words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents, here the glimpse of digital evidence can be found.
Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act state the admissibility of secondary evidence, which is a reproduction of the original. Illustration (a) to sec 63 refers to a photograph that, if proven original, ranks as secondary evidence. Again, as per section 72, digital & electronic evidence has no bar to be proved as if it was unattested.
Explanation 1 and 2 of section 29 of the Penal Code states that it is immaterial by what means or upon what substance and whatever is expressed by means of the letters, figures, or marks are formed shall be deemed to be formed, expressed by such letters, figures or marks within the meaning oSectionsection. Section 29 of the Penal Code of 1860 bears a remarkably meaningful glimpse that can be interpreted to include digital evidence since the word “matter” is a t “rm of the widest amplitude.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, it is clear that the Evidence Act has no express provision regarding the acceptance of digital evidence. Still, there is no bar to accepting that. Also, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has adjudicated the admissibility of digital evidence under the Evidence Act of 1872 on several occasions. Despite the absence of an express provision for the admissibility of digital, there is also no bar in law to admit digital evidence under the Evidence Act of 1872. The Court, on several occasions, accepted digital evidence in a trial; the cases are discussed below-
In Mrs. Khaleda Akter VS State 37 DLR (1985) 275, the Court took the view that if for the purpose of recording certain matter on magnetic tapes and showing it on television by application of technology, a video cassette or tape is made should come within the definition of the document and held that audio cassette and video shall be admissible in evidence.
Then, In the Biswajit murder case recorded in 70 DLR (2018) HCD 26, the Court took the view that video footage, still photographs, and paper clippings are admissible as evidence even without corroboration by the authors.
In the case of Major Bazlul Huda & Others Vs. The State 18 BLT (AD) (2010) 7 says regarding the admission of digital or electronic evidence, as it appears the party seeking to admit any statement or admission of any person recorded in compact disk or video cassette or any interview conducted by any television channel relating to a relevant fact or facts in issue, must also produce the original compact disk or video cassette or the programmer published in the television channel with the certificate of the producer of the program certifying the date and place of the record of the program and further the signature of the producer in the certificate has also to be proved. However, if the accused denies the statement or admission, the question of its admissibility has to be looked into under the prevailing law of evidence.
However, in this case, the following requirements have not been met.
In the case of The State Vs. Yeasin Khan Palash 29 BLD (HCD) (2007) 469, a question arises as to the admissibility of digital or electronic evidence. Addressing the question, the Court held, among other things, that “A “ready “g” of Section 16 of the Druto Bichar Tribunal Ain, 2002, it is clear that video cassettes or audio cassettes or still pictures about the occurrence are admissible in evidence. On that, the learned Judge of the Druto Bichar Tribunal No.1, Dhaka, committed no illegality in admitting tape-recorded conversation in audio cassette about the occurrence as evidence since Section 16 of the Druto Bichar Tribunal Ain, 2002 itself speaks the evidentiary value of the audio cassette and therefore, in the light of the section appreciate the matter from a correct angle.
In the case of The State Vs. Qamrul Islam & Others 2017 (2) LNJ (HCD) 303 where relevant facts were found, and the defense counsels opposed the admission of video recording as evidence on the ground that there is no law wherein video record or video footage is admissible as evidence in the eye of law in our country. ThCourtrt mentioned the judgment in the case mentioned above of Mrs. Khaleda Akhtar vs. The State 37 DLR (1985) 275 held, among other things, that “I” the “a “ove c” “circumstances, we do not find any logic in the argument of learned counsels, for accused Kamrul, Moyan, Tazuddin an,d Zakir regarding the evidence of video footage.” So,” “the c “urt” holds that a video record footage is a document within the meaning of the Evidence Act and is accordingly admissible if otherwise relevant in the course of the trial of the proceeding.
To ensure a smooth transition when changing business ownershit’siessit’saltial to understand the legal requirements and procedures involved. For detailed guidance, check out our comprehensive guide on how to successfully transfer business ownership in Bangladesh.
Therefore, by perusing the case laws above it is clear that digital evidence is admissible in judicial proceedings in our country, hence it should not be thought that digital evidence has no categories of evidence. However, an amendment that incorporates the explicit provisions in the Evidence of Act,1872, as the ards admissibility of digital evidence, is urgently required.
