Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
BNSS enables recording of virtual evidence (e.g., witness testimony via video conferencing) through court discretion on applications, akin to CrPC practices but statutorily supported (e.g., accused virtual presence under Sections 251(1)-(2), 263); no single dedicated section quoted, but consistently upheld in accordance with law with procedural rules ensuring integrity; electronic/digital evidence admissibility ties into Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam but separate from virtual recording ["DHARABAHI NAYAK vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"] ["K.V.Haneefa vs Central Bureau Of Investigation SCB - Kerala"] ["Vicky Verma VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"]
In an era dominated by digital technology, Indian law enforcement and judiciary are adapting to incorporate virtual and electronic methods for evidence collection. A common query among legal professionals, investigators, and citizens is: what is provision in BNSS Act to record virtual evidence? The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), India's new criminal procedure code replacing the CrPC, addresses this through provisions mandating or permitting audio-video electronic recordings. While it doesn't explicitly term it virtual evidence, Sections like 180(3), 183, 185, 176(3), and 105 emphasize electronic means to enhance authenticity and prevent tampering. Platforms like e-Sakshya further enable real-time digital capture. This blog explores these rules in detail, drawing from statutory texts and judicial insights.
Virtual evidence generally refers to digitally recorded data, such as audio-video footage of statements, searches, or crime scenes, admissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). BNSS integrates this into investigations to ensure transparency. Key benefits include verifiable chain of custody, reduced disputes over written records, and compliance with modern digital standards. However, implementation depends on practicality and safeguards for vulnerable groups. (P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3353)
BNSS mandates electronic recording in critical investigative stages:
Statements During Police Examination (Section 180(3)): Police may record statements using audio-video means. The section states: Provided that statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means. For women alleging sexual offenses (under specified BNS sections), recording must be by a woman officer. This creates a tamper-proof record distinct from writings. (P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3353)
Searches (Section 185(2)): Searches must be recorded via audio-video, preferably mobile phones, if practicable. The proviso states that the search conducted under this section shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably by mobile phone. (Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268)
Crime Scenes for Serious Offenses (Section 176(3)): For crimes punishable by over 7 years, scenes require video documentation.
Seizures (Section 105): All seizures must use e-Sakshya or equivalents.
Confessional/Witness Statements (Sections 180 and 183): Video recording is permitted or required, integrated via state platforms. (Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268)
These ensure electronic records supplement traditional methods, bolstering admissibility in court.
Section 180(3) empowers officers: The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. The proviso allows audio-video, with special protections for sexual offense victims. This provision ensures verifiable electronic records, distinct from written statements, with safeguards for vulnerable witnesses. (P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3353)
Section 185(2) mandates: Police conduct searches in person where possible, with audio-video recording. State police must use e-Sakshya for:- All searches/seizures under Section 105.- Crime scenes for heinous crimes under Section 176(3).- Confessional/witness statements under Sections 180/183.This integrates virtual recording into protocols, especially for serious offenses. (Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268)
Sections 193(3) and 94 facilitate production: Whenever any Court or any officer... considers that the production of any document, electronic communication, including communication devices, which is likely to contain digital evidence... such Court may issue a summons... either in physical form or in electronic form. Courts can summon devices or records electronically, supporting virtual handling. (Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2025 6 Supreme 227) (IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877)
Recent developments bolster BNSS provisions. Kerala's Electronic Audio-Video Linkage Rules, 2025, approved under Section 530 BNSS, enable judicial proceedings via electronic means across High Courts, District Courts, and tribunals. The Electronic Audio-Video Linkage Rules (Kerala), 2025 provide a framework for conducting judicial proceedings via electronic means, ensuring procedural integrity and confidentiality. Proceedings are deemed judicial, with mandates for visibility, audibility, security, and remote examinations. This extends virtual evidence to trials and inquiries. The Registrar General vs The Registrar General - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58349
Courts have upheld flexible evidence introduction, relevant for digital formats. In one case, allowing additional witnesses under Section 348 BNSS (old 311 CrPC) was affirmed, noting no prejudice if justice demands it. Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1182
Related rulings clarify electronic records as primary evidence, aligning with BSA, without rigid Section 62 constraints. Brajvanshi Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1305
In non-judicial contexts like EPF proceedings, virtual cross-examinations were critiqued if ineffective, favoring physical where voluminous evidence exists. Hotel Sagar VS Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 913
Investigating officers should:- Prioritize e-Sakshya for mandated recordings.- Document compliance meticulously for admissibility.- Seek early summons under Section 193(3) for digital evidence.
Courts/police must invest in technology and training. While BNSS modernizes procedures, effective use hinges on infrastructure.
This overview provides general insights into BNSS provisions. Legal scenarios vary; consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to specific cases. Stay updated as digital justice evolves in India.
References1. P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3353: Section 180(3) BNSS.2. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268: Sections 105, 176(3), 180, 183, 185; e-Sakshya.3. Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2025 6 Supreme 227: Section 193(3).4. IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877: Section 94.5. The Registrar General vs The Registrar General - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58349: Kerala Audio-Video Rules.6. Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1182: Witness summoning.7. Brajvanshi Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1305: Electronic records.
#BNSSAct, #VirtualEvidence, #DigitalJustice
As a result, the learned trial court has declined to record the evidence of the Petitioner on the basis of a memo filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor. ... By filing the present application under section 528 of BNSS the Petitioner-Informant seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 at Annexure-2. ... It was also contended that either necessary protection be provided to the Petitioner or she may be permitted to appear through virtual mode. 7. ... This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (#HL_STA....
A summons issued by a Court is a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the Investigating Agency is an executive act. Hence, the procedure prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into the procedure prescribed for an executive act. ... The procedure encapsulated in Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, seeks to secure this fundamental right, from encroachment by the relevant Authority, and therefore, any attempt to interpret the provision as a mere procedural one, would amount to rewr....
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (Act 46 of 2023); Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), Contempt of Courts Act , 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), a href="./..
BNSS) and section 165 of EVIDENCE ACT and by taking into consideration few earlier pronouncements upheld the order of trial Court as the same would not cause any prejudice to the rights of the accused and the accused can cross examine ... the complainant on the basis of the new material adduced on record.
The doctrine 'contemporanea exposition est optima et fortissimm' has no application when interpreting a provision of an on - going statute / act like the Criminal Procedure Code. 19. At this stage we must deal with a submission made by Mr. Sundaram. ... Such an argument displays ignorance of the concept of virtual reality and also of video conferencing. Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel, hear or imagine what does not really exists. ... This is not virtual reality, it is actual realit....
(Supra), which reads as “…if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act…” was clarified that it is to be read without the words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,…”, which goes to show that the directions issued in Anvar P.V. ... evidence under Section 62 of Evidence Act, but herein case, there is no material available to show the very source of primary evidence#HL_END....
It is borne out from the record that the incriminating case property, namely the phone belonging to PW3, was not produced by the prosecution while adducing evidence in the first instance. ... Perused the record. 6. The offence charged against the accused is under Section 307 of the IPC. ... Consequently, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 348 of the BNSS seeking to recall the evidence of PW3 and to receive the said mobile phone and mark it as a material object. However, the trial Court dismi....
However, owing to an inadvertent omission in the deposition, the said evidence has remained incomplete on record. ... Such a power should be exercised provided the evidence which may be tendered by a witness is germane to the issue involved, or if proper evidence is not adduced or relevant material is not brought on record due to any inadvertence. ... However, instead of seeking a recall of the relevant witness to clarify the omission, the prosecution elected to advance its submission by placing relianc....
That the Rules explicitly mandate an official of the Indian Embassy/High Commission/Consulate only as the Remote Point Coordinator, and cannot be interpreted to include their authorised representative to act as Remote Point Coordinator when evidence is being recorded through virtual mode. ... That the testimony of the private respondent was, however, recorded in violation of the provisions of the Cr.P.C., the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the High Court Video Conferencing Rules (hereinafter referred to ....
Coming to Section 263 of BNSS, going by the provision, in nowhere it has been stated that, framing of charge is an event to be held in the presence of the accused, though recording of plea covered under Section 263(2) of BNSS, shall be in the presence of the accused, so that he could either plead guilty ... As pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.14, as per Section 251(1) of BNSS, framing of charge in sessions cases is permitted in the virtual presence of the accused....
It defies the spirit of policy of the treating person agriculturist. The reasoning is a virtual negation of what is contemplated in the aforementioned Resolution.
Examination of an Enforcement Officer is a mode and means of adducing evidence to enable proper assessment of the dues. Thus, even going by the conditions stipulated for conducting virtual mode of hearing as stipulated in the Circular dated 01.10.2020 issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, there is a requirement that sufficient evidence must be already on record. In fact, one of the conditions for permitting virtual hearing is stipulated as 'sufficient evidence being available on record for assessment of dues'. 9. A perusal of the said Circular reveals that it....
Reference in this connection may be made to the Evidence Act, which has a provision relating to the admissibility of a statement made in a previous judicial proceeding. The relevant provision in the Evidence Act, is as follows: Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving eviden....
It was held that the manner of recording confession has provided under section 281 for the purpose of memorandum as laid down by Section 164(4), there is no provision for administering oath to an accused making a confessional statement before a Magistrate. Therefore, no question of administering oath arises and in fact if oath is administered; it will be contrary to the provision of Section 281. When such specific provision is made, the other provision of the Evidence Act etc, regarding recording of statement, will not operate. It is an illegality and as a such the confessi....
Statement of Anjanabai was recorded in that proceeding. 37 and in the statement, the relationship of both the sides with Anjanabai was given by Anjanabai. That record is relevant and needs to be considered in view of provision of section 32 of Evidence Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
