Question

Which of the following is not stated in Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, with regard to a certificate to verify the authenticity of electronic evidence?

• A. Signed by both the person in charge of the computer or communication device and an expert, with the certificate adhering to the format prescribed in the Adhiniyam's Schedule.
• B. The form specified in the Schedule requires that electronic evidence be accompanied by a 'hash value'.
• C. Qualification of an expert.
• D. None of the above

Hint:

For electronic evidence, remember the three keywords: \[ \boxed{\text{Certificate + Signature + Hash Value}} \] These are far more important than the personal qualifications of the certifier.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Concept: Electronic records can easily be altered, copied, modified, or manipulated. Therefore, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down strict procedural requirements to establish the authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence before courts. The certificate contemplated under Section 63 serves as a guarantee of authenticity and integrity.

Step 1: Purpose of the certificate.
The certificate helps the court verify:

• Source of the electronic record,

• Integrity of the data,

• Reliability of the device,

• Authenticity of the electronic evidence.

Step 2: Requirements under the statutory framework.
The prescribed format focuses upon:

• Identification of the electronic record,

• Signature of authorized persons,

• Technical verification,

• Device details,

• Hash values and authentication particulars.
These requirements ensure that the electronic record remains tamper-resistant and verifiable.

Step 3: Why Option (C) is correct.
The law emphasizes authenticity of the record rather than the educational or professional credentials of the person issuing the certificate. Therefore, "qualification of an expert" is not prescribed as a mandatory component of the certificate itself.

Step 4: Eliminating the remaining options.
* Signatures and prescribed format are part of the statutory mechanism. * Hash values are specifically used to verify integrity of electronic records. * Consequently, Option (C) alone represents something not expressly required.

Electronic evidence certification focuses on data integrity and authentication rather than disclosure of the certifier's qualifications.

Answer 2

Since this is a "which is NOT stated" question, the safest method is to check each option against what Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam actually requires for the certificate, and see which requirement is genuinely absent from the provision.

1. Signed by both the person in charge of the computer or communication device and an expert, with the certificate adhering to the Schedule format: Section 63(4) does require the certificate to be signed and to follow the prescribed format, including signature by the person responsible for operating the device along with, where applicable, an expert. Since this requirement is genuinely part of the provision, it is something the section does state, not something it omits.
2. The form specified in the Schedule requires that electronic evidence be accompanied by a 'hash value': The prescribed format under the Schedule does include a hash value as part of the technical particulars used to verify that the electronic record has not been altered. Since this too is a genuine requirement under the section, it cannot be the option describing something that is not stated.
3. Qualification of an expert: Section 63(4) is concerned with authenticating the electronic record itself, through signatures, prescribed format, and technical details such as the hash value, not with laying down or requiring disclosure of the educational or professional qualifications of the expert who signs the certificate. This is the one requirement the provision does not actually contain.
4. None of the above: Since one of the three substantive options, qualification of an expert, is genuinely absent from the provision, this residual "none of the above" option cannot be correct.

Testing each option against the actual content of Section 63(4) leaves only the qualification of the expert as something the provision does not address.

The correct answer is therefore Qualification of an expert.