Welcome to LawTutorial.in – Your Partner in Understanding Law
Join Now

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 90: Presumption as to electronic messages

§ SECTION 90 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER V — DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Presumption as to electronic messages

The message, yes — the sender, never. The Court may presume that an electronic message reaching the addressee corresponds with what was fed in for transmission, but shall not presume anything about who sent it.

How to read Section 90

Trust the content — question the sender.

May presume

The message corresponds with what was fed in for transmission.

Shall NOT presume

The person by whom the message was sent.

Strength

‘May presume’ — discretionary; and rebuttable.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 90 · verbatim

The Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.

In short: the section is carefully two-sided. On the one hand, the Court may presume that what the addressee received is faithful to what the originator fed into his computer for transmission — the message did not garble in transit. On the other, and expressly, the Court shall not presume anything about who sent the message. This carve-out matters because a “from” address can be spoofed and accounts can be compromised: apparent origin is not authorship. So an email’s content may ride on this presumption, but its sender must always be proved — typically through the electronic-record and signature provisions (§ 63, § 66, § 73). It is a ‘may presume’ — discretionary and rebuttable.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 88A — presumption as to electronic messages.

Glossary

electronic message

An email or similar message sent electronically.

originator

The person who composes / feeds in the message for transmission.

electronic mail server

The system that forwards the message to the addressee.

addressee

The person the message is addressed to.

corresponds

The received message matches what was fed in — what may be presumed.

person by whom sent

The sender’s identity — expressly not presumed.

The picture

Content correspondence — but no presumed sender.

e-message via mail serverMAYpresume it CORRESPONDSwith what was fed in for transmission⚠ NOT whoSENT ita “from” address can be spoofed — apparent origin is not authorshipprove the sender separately (§ 63 / § 66 / § 73)

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

the ruleThe message may be presumed — the sender never is

In one lineThe Court may presume that an e-message reaching the addressee corresponds with what was fed in for transmission — but it shall not presume who sent it.
1An e-message via amail server tothe addressee2Court MAY presumeit matches what wasfed in for sending3but NOTwhosent itan email is presumed to match what was typed for sending — but the law will not presume who sent it
The Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressedMAY presume: an e-message to the addresseethe Court may presume that an electronic message forwarded by the originator through a mail server to the addressee it is addressed to…
corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission;matches what was fed in for transmission…corresponds with the message as it was fed into his computer for transmission;
but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.⚠ NO presumption of WHO sent it…but the Court shall not presume anything about who actually sent the message.
ExampleAn email received by the addressee may be presumed to correspond with the message the originator fed into his computer for transmission — but the Court will not presume it was actually sent by the person it appears to come from.
✗ Not thisThe “from” line is not presumed. An email header showing a name does not presume that person sent it — spoofing / unauthorised access must be reckoned with, and the sender’s identity proved separately.

content vs identityWhy the sender is carved out

In one line§ 90 splits content from identity: the message may be presumed faithful to what was sent, but who sent it is never presumed — because a “from” address is easy to fake.
MAY presume — CONTENTthe received message = what wasfed in for transmission⚠ SHALL NOT presume — IDENTITYwho actually sent the messageis NOT presumed — prove it§ 90 may presume the content corresponds with what was fed in — but shall NOT presume who sent the message.
what IS presumedcontent correspondencethe message the addressee received is presumed to match what the originator fed in for transmission.
what is NOT presumedthe sender’s identitythe section expressly refuses any presumption about who sent the message.
identity needs other proof§ 63 / § 66 / § 73to establish who sent it, rely on the electronic-record and signature provisions (§ 63, § 66, § 73), not this section.
ExampleA threatening email reaches the victim. Its content may be presumed to match what was fed in for sending; but that it came from the accused’s address is not presumed — the prosecution must prove he sent it.
✗ Not thisDo not treat the displayed sender as established. § 90’s express bar means an email’s apparent origin proves nothing on its own about authorship — that is a fact to be proved.

Connected provisions

§ 63

Electronic records

How the message itself is admitted and proved.

§ 66

Proof as to e-signature

One route to establish the sender’s identity — which § 90 will not presume.

§ 86

Secure records & signatures

Where security does yield presumptions — the contrast.

§ 91 · next

Documents not produced

The presumptions run continues.