The Evolving Role of Technology in Evidence Collection and Verification

Criminal trials have always depended on evidence – a witness’s account, a fingerprint, a document. But today, a murder investigation might hinge on a deleted WhatsApp message, a CCTV feed, or a DNA profile. Technology has fundamentally changed what evidence looks like, how it is gathered, and how it is verified in court. This transformation presents enormous promise for the Indian justice system – and equally serious complications that courts and lawmakers are still working through.

From paper trails to digital footprints 🔗

For most of India’s legal history, evidence meant physical objects and oral testimony. The shift began quietly with the Information Technology Act, 2000, which first gave legal recognition to electronic records in Indian courts. But the real transformation came with India’s three new criminal laws – the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – all of which came into force on 1 July 2024.

The BSA replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and explicitly expands the scope of evidence to include electronic records stored in semiconductor memory, output from communication devices, emails, text messages, and website content. Section 57 of the BSA now treats electronic records as primary evidence – putting them on the same footing as traditional paper documents. Simultaneously, the BNSS mandates forensic investigation for all offences punishable with seven years or more of imprisonment, and allows trials, inquiries, and proceedings to be conducted entirely in electronic mode.

Key technologies reshaping evidence collection 🔗

Digital and electronic records 🔗

Call detail records (CDRs), CCTV footage, GPS data, email threads, and mobile phone data are now standard tools of criminal investigation. Their weight in court was underscored in landmark judgments like Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), where the Supreme Court held that secondary electronic evidence must comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – requiring a certificate of authenticity signed by a responsible official. This ruling was later clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), which affirmed that oral testimony cannot substitute for this statutory certification. Under the BSA, Section 63(4) retains this certification requirement, but adds that the certificate must now be signed by both the person in charge of the device and an expert, and must include a hash value – a unique alphanumeric string that acts as a digital fingerprint to verify that the file has not been tampered with.

DNA profiling 🔗

DNA evidence has proven decisive in several high-profile Indian cases. The 2012 Delhi gang rape case is one of the most cited examples – forensic teams collected and analysed biological samples from the crime scene, and matching them to the accused’s DNA profiles provided scientific certainty that was critical to securing conviction. The BNS specifically acknowledges crimes requiring forensic support, strengthens provisions for expert testimony, and imposes strict penalties for tampering with forensic evidence. The BNSS also expands the collection of biological samples – including fingerprints and voice samples – even from individuals who have not been arrested.

CCTV surveillance and video evidence 🔗

Surveillance footage has become one of the most relied-upon forms of evidence in urban crime investigations. Recognising this, Section 176(3) of the BNSS mandates videography during the collection of forensic evidence at crime scenes, ensuring that the process is documented transparently and protecting against claims of manipulation or procedural irregularity. The law also permits electronic FIR registration – allowing individuals to report cognizable offences digitally, without being constrained by police station jurisdiction under the Zero FIR provision.

Forensic science infrastructure 🔗

India formally declared 2010 the “Year of Forensic Science,” signalling its intent to integrate scientific methods into criminal investigations. Since then, investment has grown considerably. The government has allocated ₹2,254.43 crore from 2024-25 to 2028-29 to upgrade forensic facilities across the country. Under Section 39(2) of the BSA, the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence – as designated under Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000 – is treated as a relevant fact in proceedings involving digital or computer-based information.

Admissibility: the certification requirement and its complexity 🔗

One of the most practically significant aspects of technology-based evidence in India is the admissibility framework. The core requirement – that electronic evidence be accompanied by a certificate of authenticity – has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court. In Sonu v. State of Haryana, the Court ruled that an objection to the form or method of proof must be raised when the document is marked as an exhibit, not at the appellate stage. This prevents parties from strategically raising procedural objections after the trial has concluded.

A practical bottleneck, however, is infrastructure. There are only seven forensic labs covering most of the country, making timely certification extremely difficult. This shortage directly contributes to trial delays and weakens the prosecution’s ability to present electronic evidence in the required format.

The challenges technology brings to evidence verification 🔗

Deepfakes and AI-generated content 🔗

The most unsettling emerging challenge is deepfake technology – AI-generated audio, video, or images that can convincingly mimic real people and real events. The BSA’s Sections 62 and 63 replace the older Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, but fall short of introducing any specific safeguards for synthetic media. India currently has no deepfake-specific legislation, and the existing certification framework assumes the reliability of the underlying digital source – an assumption that deepfakes directly undermine.

A 2022 Delhi court case brought the problem into sharp relief: a deepfake was used to manipulate surveillance footage in a theft trial, raising urgent questions about chain of custody and the integrity of visual evidence. In May 2025, the Supreme Court acknowledged the need for legislative action after a plea involving a deepfake video of a military officer, though it declined to intervene directly. Detecting deepfakes requires specialised forensic analysis – tools like metadata analysis and AI-detection software are being developed, but they remain inconsistent and are not yet standardised within Indian court practice.

Privacy, self-incrimination, and digital access 🔗

Technology-based evidence collection also creates constitutional tensions. The Delhi High Court ruled in 2024 that an accused person cannot be compelled to reveal a password or disclose digital access credentials during an ongoing trial, as this would violate the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This ruling reflects a broader global concern about how digital evidence collection must operate within the limits of fundamental rights.

Uneven forensic infrastructure and training gaps 🔗

Beyond the legal framework, on-the-ground realities create serious inconsistencies. Forensic labs across India vary widely in capability – some meet international standards, while others rely on outdated methods and face significant backlogs. Law enforcement officers frequently lack adequate training in digital evidence protocols, and many judges are not well-equipped to evaluate the reliability of complex forensic or AI-based outputs. This mismatch between the law on paper and its implementation in practice remains one of the most pressing concerns for the Indian criminal justice system.

The road ahead: balancing innovation with integrity 🔗

The legal reforms introduced by the BSA, BNSS, and BNS represent a serious attempt to align Indian evidence law with the realities of a digitally connected society. The mandatory use of forensic investigation for serious offences, the elevation of electronic records to primary evidence, and the push toward e-trials all signal a forward-looking approach. At the same time, tools like blockchain timestamping and video forensics are beginning to enter Indian courtrooms, offering new mechanisms for verifying the authenticity of digital content.

However, legislation alone cannot solve the problem. Addressing the deepfake challenge will require dedicated laws criminalising malicious synthetic media, mandatory AI-detection standards in forensic labs, and regular judicial training programmes developed in collaboration with technology experts. Proposals under consideration include watermarking requirements for AI-generated content and fast-track adjudication pathways for cases involving electoral or gendered deepfake misuse. Indian initiatives like Vastav AI – aimed at domestic deepfake detection – indicate that the private and academic sectors are also beginning to respond.

The opportunity before Indian law is significant: technology, if properly harnessed and regulated, can make evidence collection more objective, more transparent, and harder to tamper with. But without robust verification mechanisms, the same technology can introduce a new category of fabricated evidence that is indistinguishable from the real thing – threatening the very foundation of a fair trial.

What do you think? If deepfake technology can fabricate video evidence that is visually indistinguishable from authentic footage, should Indian courts place a higher burden of proof on digital evidence generally – or would that risk undermining legitimate electronic records? And given the shortage of forensic labs and trained experts in India, is the current legislative push toward technology-driven criminal trials outpacing the country’s actual capacity to implement it fairly?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1999/1/A2000-21.pdf
2. https://theanalysis.org.in/three-new-criminal-laws-of-india-effective-from-1-july-2024/
3. https://www.lexisnexis.com/blogs/in-legal/b/law/posts/new-criminal-laws-in-india
4. https://ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Navigating-the-Legal-Landscape-of-Electronic-Evidence-in-India.pdf
5. https://www.forensicscijournal.com/journals/jfsr/jfsr-aid1072.php
6. https://thelegallock.com/bnss-2023-transforming-indias-criminal-justice-system-with-technology
7. https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2025/04/05/the-authenticity-challenge-addressing-the-concern-of-producing-deepfake-generated-media-as-evidence-in-courts/
8. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2508273.pdf
9. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/6/60298.pdf
10. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/01/07/top-criminal-law-cases-2024-important-decisions-high-courts-across-india/
11. https://www.forensicscijournal.com/journals/jfsr/jfsr-aid1072.pdf
12. https://www.jurishour.in/columns/deepfake-evidence-in-indian-courts/
13. https://negd.gov.in/blog/deepfakes-in-india-legal-landscape-judicial-responses-and-a-practical-playbook-for-enforcement/