Admissibility of Digital Evidence in Court: IN Light of Changes in Bangladesh Evidence LAW

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of information technology has fundamentally transformed human communication, financial transactions, and criminal enterprises, shifting the locus of evidence from tangible paper to intangible digital bits. For one and a half centuries, the judicial framework of Bangladesh relied exclusively on the colonial-era Evidence Act, 1872, which was conceptually unequipped to address the volatility, mutability, and non-linear nature of electronic records. This structural vulnerability routinely compelled courts to adopt strained, ad-hoc judicial interpretations, thereby triggering systemic inconsistency. The enactment of The Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2022 represents a monumental paradigm shift, formally introducing legislative mechanisms for the admissibility of digital and electronic evidence through the insertion of groundbreaking provisions, most notably Sections 65A and 65B. This thesis provides a comprehensive doctrinal and analytical critique of this legislative overhaul. It dissects the strict procedural prerequisites mandated under Section 65B, specifically the compulsory requirement of a certificate of authenticity to validate electronic data. Furthermore, this study examines the contemporary obstacles confronting the Bangladeshi criminal justice delivery system, including the fragile "chain of custody," the vulnerabilities of digital forensic laboratories, and the persistent technological capacity deficit among judges, prosecutors, and defense counsels. By executing a meticulous comparative analysis with advanced evidentiary frameworks in India and the United Kingdom, this research identifies critical loopholes within the domestic framework. Ultimately, this thesis prescribes actionable institutional, procedural, and legislative reforms necessary to harmonize the rule of law with the imperatives of the digital age, ensuring that electronic evidence serves as an uncompromised instrument of justice rather than a source of procedural bottlenecks.