BNA vs. Indian Evidence Act: Understanding India’s New Era of Evidence Law

The year 2023 marked a historic shift in India’s criminal justice system with the introduction of three new laws: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replacing IPC, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNA) replacing CrPC, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While these reforms aim to modernize laws that were drafted during the colonial era, one of the most important transformations has occurred in the law of evidence.

The Indian Evidence Act was more than 150 years old, created in a time when the world knew nothing about digital records, CCTV footage, cloud storage, voice recordings, WhatsApp chats, emails, or forensic technology. As crime and communication methods evolved, the need for a modern framework became unavoidable. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) was introduced to replace the Evidence Act, while the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNA) introduces procedural changes that directly influence how evidence is collected, preserved, and presented. Together, these two new laws attempt to bring India’s justice system into the digital age.

One of the key differences between the old Evidence Act and the new framework under the BSA (supported by BNA procedures) is the recognition and expansion of electronic evidence. Under the old Evidence Act, digital records were recognized only through Section 65B certificates, and even that created confusion and contradictory judgments. Courts struggled to agree on when certificates were needed and how digital evidence should be authenticated. The BSA expands the definition of electronic evidence to include emails, SMS, digital documents, social media posts, cloud data, metadata, CCTV recordings, audio messages, digital signatures, biometric data, and even data stored in servers located outside India. This is a transformative change because more than 80% of crimes today involve some form of digital trail whether financial fraud, cybercrime, terrorism, or even harassment. BNA supports this by laying down procedures for search and seizure of electronic devices, freezing digital accounts, preserving call logs, and ensuring chain of custody for electronic material so that no evidence is manipulated.

Another important difference lies in the admissibility and reliability of evidence. The old Evidence Act often required extensive proof of authenticity for documents, which delayed trials. The BSA simplifies this by allowing courts to accept electronic documents as primary evidence if collected properly under BNA procedures. This means a CCTV footage or WhatsApp chat can be directly admitted, provided the prosecution follows the digital certification and chain-of-custody rules laid down in the new law. This reduces delays and strengthens court reliance on modern forms of proof. The new law also gives legal recognition to electronic or digital seal, digital forensic reports, and voice samples, which were not explicitly covered earlier.

A major improvement relates to the recording of statements and testimonies. Under the old system, statements of accused or witnesses were recorded mostly in handwritten form or typed manually, leaving room for errors or manipulation. BNA now introduces audio-video recording at every important stage search, seizure, arrest, interrogation, and statement recording. This reduces allegations of false confessions, police misconduct, or forced statements. It also helps courts rely on more objective material. For example, BNA mandates that a woman’s statement in cases of sexual offenses must be recorded by a woman officer through audio-video means, ensuring both sensitivity and transparency. These procedures directly improve the quality of evidence later evaluated under the BSA.

One of the most crucial changes is the introduction of forensic evidence as a mandatory part of investigation in serious offenses. Earlier, police rarely used forensic tools because the Evidence Act was silent about them, and there were no strict procedures binding officers to use scientific methods. BNA now requires forensic experts to visit crime scenes for offenses punishable with more than 7 years of imprisonment. DNA analysis, fingerprinting, ballistic examination, chemical testing, and digital forensics now play a central role in criminal trials. The BSA gives such forensic reports strong evidentiary value, reducing dependence on oral testimony, which is often unreliable or can be influenced.

The reforms also impact burden of proof and presumptions. While basic principles like “innocent until proven guilty” remain unchanged, the BSA introduces certain presumptions for digital records, official electronic documents, and government-issued digital certificates. This helps reduce lengthy arguments on authenticity. The new law also strengthens presumptions in cases of sexual offenses and crimes against children, ensuring a more victim-centric approach. Under the Evidence Act, many such protections were not clearly built into the legal structure.

A major difference arises in the treatment of hostile witnesses, a common problem in Indian trials. The old system allowed witnesses to change statements easily due to fear, influence, or bribery. BNA counters this by enabling audio-video statements recorded at police stations to be used in court if a witness turns hostile. This ensures that original testimonies are preserved digitally and cannot be changed later. The BSA then allows courts to compare oral testimony with recorded digital statements and decide credibility.

Another impactful reform is the shift from complicated colonial language to simple, modern terminology. The Evidence Act contained archaic expressions such as “dying declarations”, “admissions and confessions”, and “estoppel” explained in dense language. The BSA rewrites these sections in simpler words, making them easier for students, police officers, lawyers, and ordinary citizens to understand. This democratization of law supports procedural reforms under BNA, which also uses more accessible language.

Despite these advancements, the new laws also face concerns. Experts warn that increased reliance on digital evidence could create privacy risks or encourage excessive surveillance. There are also questions about whether India has enough forensic labs, trained officials, and digital infrastructure to support such major reforms. Implementation will be key laws alone cannot transform the system unless supported by training, technology upgrades, and accountability.

Overall, the shift from the old Evidence Act to the new combination of BNA + BSA represents India’s attempt to create a justice system that reflects today’s digital reality. The reforms give stronger legal recognition to electronic evidence, introduce scientific investigation methods, ensure transparent procedures through audio-video recordings, simplify legal language, and empower courts with modern tools of evaluation. If implemented effectively, these changes can make trials faster, more reliable, and more aligned with global standards. India has entered a new era of evidence law one that hopes to deliver justice with clarity, technology, and transparency.