A single homicide investigation today may involve terabytes of data. These digital trails are meant to make the truth easier to establish. But as courts begin to accept digital evidence like screenshots, recordings, and other electronic data, questions about their reliability have arisen. Digital materials can be edited, manipulated, taken out of context, or even fabricated, which means that technology that is meant to clarify can also create confusion.
In earlier years, before statutory clarity, courts relied on judicial interpretation to accept digital materials as evidence. In the 2012 Biswajit murder case, video footage played a crucial role in identifying perpetrators and was admitted as evidence through interpretive application of existing legal provisions. However, with subsequent developments and amendments to the Evidence Act, electronic records now have clear recognition within the formal legal framework. Although this has made the admission of digital evidence more structured, there is a need to address issues of authenticity, manipulation, and proper verification.
Digital materials often provide only fragmented representations of events rather than a complete picture, while the enormous volume of data stored further complicates investigation. In many cases, identifying the device from which the information originated does not necessarily establish the actual individual responsible for creating or transmitting it. Besides, the evidentiary value of digital records is determined by the quality of forensic analysis, preservation, and procedures. A minor procedural failure may compromise reliability and admissibility before the court.
With the rapid advancement of technology, a procedure or verification measure which is considered reliable today may become inadequate within a short time due to emerging technologies, use of AI, and refined editing tools. This rapid evolution of technology places constant pressure on law enforcement authorities to keep up with technical training and increasingly complex digital infrastructures. Continuous updates, monitoring newly developed systems on an almost daily basis, and upgrading expensive devices with even more sophisticated technologies place significant pressure on investigative authorities. The intangible nature of digital evidence makes the situation more difficult as it requires specialists to properly identify, interpret, and preserve digital records.
The growing uncertainty does not remain confined to technical and procedural concerns, but directly affects judicial outcomes. In criminal proceedings, there is a chance that improperly or incompletely verified digital records may contribute to wrongful conviction or allow the actual offender to escape liability. The influence of manipulated or misinterpreted records can also turn the direction of a trial, leading to outcomes that may not fully reflect the reality of events. Courts may also require additional time and expert assistance to verify digital materials, which can prolong proceedings and cause delays in the delivery of justice.
Improper collection methods, use of non-forensic tools, or failure to follow standard procedures can significantly compromise the integrity of digital materials. Additionally, human error or cognitive bias during collection and analysis may affect interpretation, creating a risk of incomplete or distorted conclusions.
As reliance on digital evidence continues to grow, the need for coordinated legal and technological response is becoming more urgent. Although provisions in the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 and the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly recognise digital records as evidence, the rapid evolution of technology creates procedural and interpretive difficulties which existing mechanisms often struggle to address consistently. In such circumstances, strong coordination among evidentiary laws, cyber regulations, and forensic practices has become essential to maintain reliability on investigations using digital evidence.
Regularly updated procedural guidelines, improved preservation and verification methods, specialised cyber forensic support, and continuous technical development within investigative authorities can help reduce uncertainties about the authenticity of digital records. At the same time, technical awareness within judicial proceedings and a more consistent evidentiary standard can assist courts in balancing technological advancement with procedural fairness, accuracy, and public confidence in the justice system.
Digital evidence has undeniably transformed investigations and judicial processes, making digital records an essential part of contemporary justice systems. However, the challenge no longer lies in obtaining digital information but in ensuring its reliability, authenticity, and fair interpretation during legal proceedings. The growing reliance on digital records, therefore, demands not only technological advancement but also continuous legal adaptation, and procedural consistency.
Ira Mehezabin is studying in the Department of Law at Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP).
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
