Can Courts Admit Evidence Which Has Been Obtained Illegally Or Improperly?
Live LawThe admissibility of evidence in Courts in India is dependent on its relevancy as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act.Illegality or impropriety in obtaining the evidence will not affect its admissibility, if it is otherwise relevant.Test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy and not on how it was obtained.In Kuruma v The Queen AC 197 the Privy Council laid down that. After quoting the above observations of the Privy Council, the SC observed as follows: "It would be thus seen that in India, as in English, where the test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out". Therefore, the Commission suggested that "there is need for conferring on the court a discretion to exclude evidence obtained illegally or improperly if, in the circumstances of the case, the admission of such evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute" The Commission suggested incorporation of Section 166A of the Indian Evidence Act for giving courts the discretionary power to exclude illegally or improperly obtained evidence. "The judgment in Pooran Mals case, therefore, cannot be understood to have laid down that an illicit article seized during the search of person, on prior information, conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act can be used as evidence of unlawful possession of the illicit article on the person from whom that contraband had been seized during an illegal search", said the Court in Baldev Singh. The Court held that hat an illicit article seized from the person of an accused, during search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act, cannot by itself be used as admissible evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused.
History of this topic
S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Are Insufficient For Conviction Without Supporting Evidence : Supreme Court
Live Law
S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Are Insufficient For Conviction Without Supporting Evidence : Supreme Court
Live Law
Courts Ought To Refrain From Interfering With Findings Of Facts In Departmental Inquiries Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court
Live Law
S.27 Evidence Act | Bar On Admissibility Of Confessional Statement Made To Police U/S 67 NDPS Act Lifted On Discovery Of Inculpatory Material: P&H High Court
Live Law
Statements Recorded U/S 164 CrPC Are Not Substantive Evidence, Can Only Be Used For Corroboration: Madras High Court Reiterates
Live Law
India's Judicial Impasse On Hague Evidence Convention
Live Law
"Ring Of Truth" : Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Appreciation Of Ocular Evidence In Criminal Case
Live Law
Liberal Approach Of Law For Collection Of Evidence Should Not To Be Taken As Approval To Adopt Illegal Means, Especially In Matrimonial Disputes: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]
Live Law
‘Fact’ In Section 27 Of Evidence Act Not Limited To ‘Actual Physical Material Object’ And Includes ‘Mental Awareness Of The Accused As To Its Existence: SC [Read Judgment]
Live Law
Conviction Based On Confession Statement Of Accused: Experts Demand Reconsideration Of Supreme Court Judgment
Live Law
Conviction For Causing Disappearance Of Evidence Merely Because Of Failure To Inform Police About Crime Not Justified: SC [Read Judgment]
Live LawDiscover Related