Digital Evidence in BNS: Mandatory Forensic Verification for 7+ Year Sentences – A Complete Guide (2026)

One of the most significant changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 is the mandatory forensic verification of digital evidence for offenses punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or more. Section 56 of the BNS, read with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, has raised the evidentiary bar for serious crimes.

At Hashmi Law Associates (HLAPL), we regularly advise clients on digital evidence issues in criminal trials. This guide explains the forensic verification requirement, the procedure for compliance, and the impact on criminal defense strategy.

1. The Legal Framework – Section 56 BNS

Section 56 of the BNS (which corresponds to Section 45 of the IPC, but substantially expanded) reads:

Key components:

• Mandatory for offenses with ≥7 years imprisonment: This includes serious crimes such as culpable homicide (Section 100 BNS), gang rape (Section 70 BNS), organised crime (Section 110 BNS), and certain economic offenses.
• Forensic verification by an FSL/CFSL: The digital evidence must be examined by a Central or State Forensic Science Laboratory (or other lab notified by the central government). Private labs are not permitted unless specially authorised.
• Certificate of verification: The forensic report must be submitted along with the evidence (e.g., CD/DVD/USB containing the electronic record).

2. What Qualifies as Digital / Electronic Evidence?

Under Section 2(f) of the BSA, "electronic record" includes:

• Data stored in electromagnetic or optical form
• Information communicated through electronic means (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, email)
• Audio and video recordings (CCTV, body camera, mobile phone videos)
• Social media posts and direct messages
• GPS location data and metadata
• Call detail records (CDRs) and SMS logs

All the above must be forensically verified if the offense charged carries a sentence of 7 years or more.

3. Forensic Verification – What Does It Entail?

Forensic verification by a recognised FSL/CFSL includes:

4. Offenses Where Forensic Verification Is Mandatory

Section 56 applies to any offense where the maximum punishment is 7 years or more. This includes, but is not limited to:

5. Practical Implications for Criminal Trials

• Prosecution burden increased: The prosecution must now not only collect digital evidence but also ensure it is forensically verified before filing charges. This adds time and cost to the investigation.
• Defense opportunities: The defense can challenge the admissibility of digital evidence if the forensic certificate is missing, incomplete, or if the chain of custody is broken.
• Timeline for forensic verification: Forensic labs are already overburdened; in many states, forensic verification for digital evidence can take 3‑6 months, leading to delays in trial commencement.
• Inapplicability to lesser offenses: For offenses punishable with less than 7 years (e.g., simple hurt, trespass, minor cheating), the prosecution can still rely on digital evidence without forensic verification (but the court may still require authentication under Section 63 BSA).

6. Landmark Case – Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana (2026)

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 56 BNS:

• Forensic verification is mandatory for offenses with 7+ years imprisonment; digital evidence cannot be admitted without it.
• However, if forensic verification is not possible due to technical reasons (e.g., device damaged beyond recovery), the prosecution may lead other evidence to prove the contents (e.g., witness testimony, screenshots taken at the time).
• The certificate under Section 63 BSA is not a substitute for forensic verification; both are required for 7+ year offenses.
• If the forensic report is not ready at the time of filing charges, the court may grant an adjournment of up to 60 days for the prosecution to obtain it; beyond that, the evidence may be excluded.

7. How HLAPL Can Help in Digital Evidence Cases

At Hashmi Law Associates (HLAPL), we have a dedicated criminal practice handling digital evidence matters:

• Defense strategy – challenging the admissibility of digital evidence if forensic verification is missing or defective.
• Anticipatory bail – arguing that absence of forensic verification weakens the prosecution case, favouring bail.
• Quashing of FIR – where the prosecution relies solely on unverified digital evidence, seeking quashing under Section 482 BNSS.
• Forensic audit coordination – liaising with FSL/CFSL for independent forensic examination of devices seized from the accused.
• Section 63 BSA certificates – preparing certificates for electronic evidence submitted by the defense.