BRAC University School of Law has organized an undergraduate seminar on admissibility of E-evidence in the Courts of Bangladesh. The speaker was Antara Tasmeen,(former president, BULC) who did a research on this topic. At the beginning of the seminar, Dr. Saira Rahman Khan, Professor, School of Law, BRAC University mentioned that more seminars based on research are needed to enhance the knowledge of the students of the School of Law. Mr. Rizwanul Islam, Associate Professor, School of Law, BRAC University encouraged the research work of Antara Tasmeen appraising the analytical interpretation regarding this topic, which is quite rare among the students of law.
Ms. Tasmeen began with the definition of E-evidence or digital evidence, “which is any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial.” It is not only the information that is stored, but also the way the evidence is gathered. Its latent, alterable, perpetual and vulnerable nature distinguishes it from documentary and oral evidences.
According to her research, while the increasing usage of technology gives more relevance to the litigation of electronic evidence, Ms. Tasmeen mentions that laws in Bangladesh still do not include much specific information about what encompasses electronic evidences or how to use these evidences in various suits. It creates an uncertainty among the lawyers and the judges about using it and interpreting it, which becomes an obstacle while giving fair decisions.
She added that, though our chief law for evidence procedure- The Evidence Act, 1872, does not have any direct provision for electronic evidence; there are certain acts where electronic evidences are accepted as documents. Some of the laws that she mentioned are: Speedy Trial Tribunal Ain 2002 and Ain Sringkhola Bighnokari Aporadh Ain 2002, which in section 16 of the former and section 14 of the latter includes provisions for using camera for photographic and video recording as evidence. Also, Pornography NiyontronAin 2012, which accepts all forms of electronic evidence and the Information and Communication Technology Act 2006, which also accepts E-evidence as evidence in court. However, this applies only for offences related to these laws. In her research she further found that, Oporadh Shomporkito Bishoye Paroshparik Shohayota Ain 2012, helps the foreign countries in investigating e-evidence in our country and vice versa. Unfortunately, this does not give us the same opportunity within our own territory.
Here, Antara Tasmeen mentioned the case of Mrs. Khaleda Akhter vs. The State (1985), where it was held that video recording is a form of evidence; however, a very crucial observation made by the speaker is that, instead of making new laws or amending the laws we already have, we are still going with our over one century old law from Victorian England and a precedent which is 31years old, whereas, India changed their evidence Act, which they have been sharing with us since 1872, by amending and adding new provisions as per contemporary requirements, 16 long years back. They have changed the definition of ‘document’, added provisions regarding admissibility of e-evidence and a provision regarding experts’opinions. Presuming that,Bangladesh is no less advanced technologically; adding provisions regarding electronic evidence will not only better our legal system, but also give a better understanding of admissibility of e-evidence to the lawyers, law enforcement agencies and the overall judicial system of Bangladesh. With this note, we sincerely thank AntaraTasmeen for enlightening us with her research on e-evidence and its admissibility in the Courts of Bangladesh.