Topic
Digital evidence in Indian law refers to electronically stored information, such as messages, call records, or digital files, used to prove facts in criminal and civil proceedings under the Indian Evidence Act and IT Act.
Bombay HC grants anticipatory bail to an applicant accused of unauthorized crypto wallet transactions under IT Act and BNS, citing three-month delay in FIR registration and absence of evidence of wrongful gain. Court imposes weekly police station attendance conditions to ensure cooperation.
Karnataka High Court upholds Rs. 10,00,000 compensation under the PWDV Act, ruling that a 'domestic relationship' need not be established solely by a marriage certificate. Admissions, digital evidence, and conduct can suffice, expanding protection for aggrieved women in non-formalized relationships.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail in a dowry death case after finding that WhatsApp conversations revealed the victim's suicide stemmed from pre-marital relationship shame, not dowry harassment. This ruling clarifies that isolated, uncorroborated dowry claims without evidence of sustained demand cannot sustain custody under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, empowering accused persons to challenge presumptions with digital evidence.
The ITAT Delhi has ruled that negative cash balances in digital accounting records cannot be aggregated as unexplained income under Section 69A. Only the highest single negative balance - if substantiated - may be considered, preventing automatic tax additions from system errors or duplicate entries. This protects businesses from punitive assessments based on flawed digital data and clarifies the limits of the Peak Theory in modern bookkeeping contexts.
Rajasthan High Court sets a precedent by requiring bail applicants under BNSS Section 483 to disclose digital assets, social media accounts, and submit to regular monitoring. This ruling expands bail jurisprudence to address cyber-enabled offences, impacting accused persons facing digital evidence-based prosecutions.
The Bombay HC ruled that deliberately surrendering a different mobile phone than the one used in the crime constitutes misrepresentation, nullifying claims of cooperation and justifying custodial interrogation for recovery of material digital evidence. This sets a critical precedent: voluntary surrender of evidence must be truthful to qualify for anticipatory bail under BNSS, not merely procedural compliance.
The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail after finding WhatsApp and GPay messages between the accused and complainant directly undermined the FIR’s claims of coercion and false marriage promises. This sets a critical precedent: digital communication timelines can override vague, post-facto allegations in sexual offence cases, reinforcing that custodial interrogation is not mandatory when evidence disproves the core accusation.
MP High Court rules that anticipatory bail under Section 69 BNS can be granted without custodial interrogation if the relationship was consensual, prolonged, and digital evidence (WhatsApp chats, photographs) corroborates the absence of deceit. The ruling emphasizes proportionality, rejecting mechanical detention where no coercion or fraud is established.
Rajasthan High Court ruled that ambiguous voice messages without direct instigation fail to meet the evidentiary threshold for abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNSS. The judgment reinforces that bail at the pre-trial stage must prioritize the presumption of innocence, especially where digital evidence is speculative.
CESTAT rules that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used for customs valuation or penalty imposition unless they are formally admitted in evidence through witness examination under Section 138B. This holding reinforces procedural safeguards in customs investigations, impacting how digital and documentary evidence is treated in adjudication.
Patna High Court rules that mere allegations of AI-generated morphed images, without proof of virality or malicious intent, cannot justify pre-arrest detention under POCSO and IT Act. The court emphasized the need for verified digital evidence and parental supervision assurances in granting anticipatory bail to the 18-year-old accused.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Pawan Kumar after CCTV footage disproved the case diary’s assertion that he fired a firearm, underscoring that speculative allegations cannot justify pre-trial detention. This ruling reinforces the primacy of digital evidence over investigative narratives and pressures law enforcement to align official records with objective footage, especially in overcrowded jail contexts.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that seeking digital evidence after prosecution evidence has closed, without any documentary foundation, amounts to a fishing inquiry and cannot be permitted under Section 348 BNSS. This sets a critical boundary for prosecutors and complainants in POCSO and other serious cases, preventing speculative digital forensics requests that undermine finality of trial proceedings.
Madras High Court rules that GST authorities cannot retain seized electronic devices if their possession prevents taxpayers from complying with summons, reinforcing that seizure powers must balance investigative needs with statutory rights. The judgment mandates the return of the computer to enable the petitioner to furnish supplier lists, bank statements, and other summoned documents, setting a precedent for proportionality in digital evidence seizures under tax law.
NCLAT rules that unverified WhatsApp screenshots and unfiled lab reports cannot establish a pre-existing dispute under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The ruling clarifies that operational creditors must provide credible, documented evidence to defeat insolvency petitions, impacting debt recovery strategies for businesses.