The Principle of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Criminal Trial.

The principle of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials remains a controversial issue in India's legal system. While law enforcement agencies are mandated to ensure justice, they are often under immense pressure to close high-profile cases, especially when public sentiment and media hype intensify. A notable example of this can be seen in cases involving Bollywood celebrities, such as the recent Saif Ali Khan assault case or the Salman Khan shooting case. In these instances, the investigation agencies were not only facing tremendous pressure from the government but also from the public, who were deeply concerned about the safety of high-profile individuals. The widespread media coverage created an environment where the perception was that if Bollywood stars, who enjoy significant protection, were not safe, the common man’s safety could be at even greater risk.?

In such a high-stakes scenario, there is a possibility that investigation agencies, in an attempt to quickly resolve the cases and quell public anxiety, may have resorted to using questionable methods or illegally obtained evidence to close the investigations. While these actions may have been motivated by a desire to restore public confidence and bring justice, they often run the risk of violating legal principles and compromising the fairness of the judicial process. The tension between ensuring justice and protecting constitutional rights becomes even more apparent in such high-pressure cases, raising important questions about the ethical boundaries of law enforcement practices.

1.?? Legal Structure in India

India’s legal framework governing evidence is governed by the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, now BSA 2023, which outlines the rules for the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. However, Indian courts are also bound by the Constitution, particularly Articles 20(3) and 21, which safeguard individual rights:

a.??? Article 20(3): Protection against Self-Incrimination: - This provision prohibits compelling an individual to testify against themselves. Forced confessions, obtained under duress or coercion, are inadmissible in court. The Indian Evidence Act, specifically Section 24, explicitly affirms this constitutional safeguard by declaring coerced confessions invalid.

b.??? Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty: - Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the courts have interpreted to encompass the right to privacy. In landmark cases such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as fundamental under Article 21, thereby invalidating any unlawful surveillance or unauthorised phone tapping as a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights.

The Doctrine of “fruit of the poisonous tree”: - The doctrine of “fruit of the poisonous tree” is a pertinent legal principle that governs the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal actions. This doctrine states that evidence obtained through unlawful means cannot be used to incriminate an individual who did not directly participate in the unlawful activity.: - South African Constitution.

2.??? The principle of “fruit of the poisonous tree” is generally applied in India more often by all premium investigating agencies, although this doctrine is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act and/or BSA 2023. This doctrine holds that evidence obtained through illegal means (e.g., illegal searches, torture, or surveillance) is considered tainted and cannot be admitted in a court of law. The rationale behind this principle is that any evidence derived from an unlawful act should not be used to support a conviction, as it undermines the integrity of the judicial process. However, there are exceptions. Courts may permit the use of illegally obtained evidence if it is deemed reliable, relevant, and necessary for a fair trial. For instance, if there is no alternative means of obtaining the evidence and it is crucial to the case, the court may allow its admission under specific circumstances.

3.?? Supreme Court Judgement on Illegally Obtained Evidence

Hon. Supreme Court has addressed the issue of illegally obtained evidence in several landmark judgments:

a.??? Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978): The Supreme Court held that confessions made under duress or torture are inadmissible, even if the confession is made voluntarily during questioning.

b.??? TADA Cases (1997): In cases under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through violations of constitutional rights, such as illegal detention or torture, could not be admitted in court.

c.??? R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973): The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through illegal phone tapping (without following the legal procedure laid out in the Indian Telegraph Act) was inadmissible, as it violated the right to privacy.

d.??? State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960): This case highlighted that while illegally obtained evidence could be excluded, courts might still admit it if it is deemed reliable and trustworthy, even if obtained unlawfully, in certain exceptional cases.

4.?? Abuse of Power

The admission of illegally obtained evidence raises several critical concerns:

a.??? Breach of Privacy and Unlawful Surveillance

Unauthorised surveillance, such as phone tapping without legal authorization, violates an individual’s right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Indian laws, including the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act, establish procedures for lawful communication interception. Any breach of these laws compromises both individual privacy and constitutional protections.

b.??? Forced Confessions and Torture

The use of force, threats, or coercion to extract confessions is not only unlawful but also unreliable. Confessions obtained under duress are often considered inherently tainted and prone to lead to wrongful convictions. The D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) case reaffirmed that custodial violence, leading to forced confessions, is unconstitutional, and such evidence cannot be admitted in court.

5.??? In India, the general rule is that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court, as it often violates fundamental rights such as the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy. Indian courts, however, may admit such evidence under exceptional circumstances if it is deemed crucial to the fair administration of justice and can be shown to be reliable. Striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and ensuring a fair trial is a delicate matter. The risk of abuse, particularly through forced confessions or unlawful surveillance, is a serious concern, and the legal system must ensure that any evidence presented in court is obtained lawfully and ethically. The use of illegally obtained evidence should always be carefully scrutinized to prevent miscarriages of justice and protect the integrity of the legal process.

?