Admissibility of illegal evidence in the Court of Law.


What if any police authority slams the door and enters into your house without any warrant or any notice, just on the grounds of being suspected in a recent murder at your society but at the same time, authorities discover a blood-stained murder weapon matching with the DNA of victim. Now the question that arises in such a circumstance is that although police authorities had committed wrongs like trespassing, they also found the murder weapon with bloodstains, which can be highly vital for their case. Author [1] in the abovementioned situation questions whether that evidence collected from the house would still be eligible for admission in any court of law in India? Or can we depict it as sweet fruit of a sour tree, which lawyers address as illegal pursuit of evidence renounced by consideration and they consider it generally as inadmissible?

Are there any criteria where even such seizure or sometime stolen objects can be admissible as evidence annexure or coolly admissible in Indian court of law?

Before getting into the soup let's go through the crunches. The expression “admissibility” in layman's terms mean any object eligible for being legally admissible or permissible in court of law. And in legal terminology, "evidence" is defined and described under the ambit of section 17 of Indian evidence act[2] and the prima facie reading of section states that "An admission is a statement, 1[oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned"

In landmark judgement of Bishwanath Prasad vs. Dwarka Prasad[3] it was held by the court that admissibility of evidence in the court of law is the branch of substantive evidence and can also act as doubt raiser on the correctness or truthfulness of any witness.

In any proceeding primary obstacle in introducing any piece of proof to a court of law is showing that the proof is of significant concern in the matter. Pertinence is a limited prerequisite that should be met under the watchful eye of the court can consider the worth the proof may have. The proof is important when it "tends to make a reality pretty much likely than it would be without the proof" and "the truth of the matter is significant in deciding the action.”

If there is doubt on the significance of evidence then the court can reject the same evidence on several grounds which may alter the substantiality. For example, the arbitrary prejudiced, perplexing situation of prayer of issue, attempt to mislead the jury, etc.


In the landmark judgment of Basant Singh vs. Janki[4] Singh court laid down the specific essence and principles in concern of admissibility that are:-

a) The affirmation made by a gathering for a proceeding must be properly marked and confirmed by that party which could be utilized as proof against that party in another suit, yet the equivalent couldn't be named as decisive.

b) Court decision was expressing that there stays no distinction between the affirmation of a gathering in arguing and different confirmations from thereon.

c) Admissibility of any evidence must be marked in annexure and should be in contrast to the fact binding to the situation.

d) An acceptability of a request of the blame can be resolved just if the supplication is recorded in the words utilized by the denounced or the individual accused of an offense.

e) An affirmation in court must be perused in its whole structure and no assertions can be removed in pursuit of setting the frame for confirmation of a specific certainty.

f) For admission and to have a considerable proof impact, evidence ought to be willful in nature. Any confirmation which is made in obliviousness of rights or under restriction in which an individual is impacted, regardless of whether by a legitimate or unlawful strong impulse of their freedom by the execution of actual requirement; lawfully for the bringing about of common responsibility, of a resident's capture, or of subrogation, or wrongfully for the submitting of an offense, of compelling an agreement, or of utilizing dangers can't be viewed as an affirmation.

g) Affirmations are restricted to being just at first sight verification (not requiring additional confirmation except if an opposite proof is appeared or delivered in the Official courtroom) and don't convey a decisive worth. Whereas affirmations which are clear, in the expressions of the blamed or the individual accused of an offense are considered as the best evidence of the realities submitted.

There are different aspects by which proof can be on the platform of illicitly. A portion of the basic occasions of illicitly acquired proof is like Phone tapping/recording, anything against spirit of law, Illegal search and seizure, as mentioned in instance of first paragraph, unwilful narcoanalysis. Such incidents sometimes seem to be very vital so therefore the risks of tolerating the products of a sour tree are, in this manner, genuine. Contrasting the ‘illegally grasped evidence’ would without a doubt, boost police in improving their techniques and exploring as per the law. It would likewise secure fair treatment rights, individual freedom and check police intervention.


The circumstances where evidence is acceptable is embodied in section 20 of the Indian evidence act 1872 and according to the section, evidence should be legally proven or rejected on the ground of respected case facts. And if the evidence is not associated with the given fact of the case then the same can be reconsidered as irrelevant and resultantly it cannot be inadmissible. The reliability here is the legality of the epitome that is being aced as evidence.

In the landmark case of the same K.M Singh vs. Secretary Indian University Association 1992, it was ruled that section 20 of Indian evidence act (this section is associated with the section of vicarious admissions) is acting as one of the exceptions of the general rule which is incorporated in article 18 of evidence act. Basically, the section expresses that a third individual's assessment is considered only when the third individual is alluded to by one gathering in the matter of question. The third individual's assessment is considered for the explanation that one gathering in debate favors of the outsider's assessment while expecting the other party to enquire.


Forever, the prevailing methodology of the legal executive has been not to avoid evidence on the ground of it being obtained through unlawful methods. Legal evidence is said to be something a court is dependent on its significance/probative worth, and inconsistency or indecency in the strategy for securing said proof doesn't, without anyone else, make the evidence unacceptable. Perhaps the most established case on the topic of tolerability of unlawfully acquired proof is R v. Leatham. This was an instance of charges of degenerate practices, heard before a commission named under the Bad Practices Counteraction Act, 1854.

Closer to home, in India, we apparently got going destined for success and, in any event at first, didn't follow the proclamation of R v. Leathem. In Ukha Kolhe v. Province of Maharashtra[5], the Court had the event of managing this issue; the inquiry under the watchful eye of the Court was: the acceptability of a blood test for a situation where the technique for testing the blood test was not followed and given this lawlessness – the Court avoided the consequences of the blood test, holding that, unmistakably the administrative aim was that the endorsed due methodology should be followed for assortment of blood tests, and there can be no alternate method of gathering proof other than what is explicitly set down. The Court decided that the proof can't be held permissible when the due methodology has not been followed. To reach this resolution, the Court drew strength from the milestone instance of Nazir Ahmad v. The Lord Emperor[6] where it was held, "… where a force is given to do something specific with a particular goal in mind the thing should be done in that manner or not in any manner.” In R M Malkani vs, Territory of Maharashtra[7] the court gave a brief of legal arrangement of avoidance of wrongfully acquired proof, the Court conceded illicitly got proof. For this situation, the police had fixed a copying instrument to a phone with the assent of just one of the gatherings to record the discussion, nonetheless, the opposite side battled that the copied discussion had been acquired through illicit methods. In this foundation, it was held that "regardless of whether proof is unlawfully acquired it is permissible". Essentially, in Poorna Mal v. Head of Assessment of Personal Expense (Examination), New Delhi and Another[8], while administering on the subject of acceptability of material seized in an inquiry, claimed to be vitiated by wrongdoing, the Court held that "except if there is an express or vital suggested preclusion in the Constitution or other law, proof got because of illicit hunt or seizure isn't responsible to be closed out".


The time is in every case option to make the wisest decision. The nations which initially fused this guideline have moved away from it thus should India. On the legal executive's side, the High Court judgment of Puttuswamy, trailed by the Bombay High Court judgment, is certainly a positive development and a stage we welcome. Having said that, a correction in the law is basic to obviously set out a standard where the court is given the prudence to reject unlawfully got proof; which attentiveness might be worked out – remembering an assortment of conditions as point by point above. On the off chance that the change doesn't roll in from the council, the legal executive should obviously set down exclusionary standards (as in US) or put the 'uncalled for activity rule' (propelled from UK) on firmer legitimate ground. Ample opportunity has already past that the law, rather than looking the alternate way, must disincentivize unlawful examinations and ensure fair treatment by declining to get wrongfully acquired proof. Some other view would be commensurate to the law missing the timberland for the sour trees. Evidence are the most essential and crucial component of any procedures either criminal or common and will be shielded from any sort of abusing or, in all likelihood it may turn prohibited in the Court.

[1] Author is first year student of BA LLB from Asian law college, Noida [2] Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [3] Bishwanath Prasad vs. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1974 SC 117 [4]Basant Singh vs Janki Singh And Ors on 2 August, 1966, 1967 AIR 341, 1967 SCR (1) [5] Pandit Ukha Kolhe vs The State Of Maharashtra, 1963 AIR 1531, 1964 SCR (1) 926 [6] Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2), 1936 [7] R. M. Malkani vs State Of Maharashtra, 1973 AIR 157, 1973 SCR (2) 417 [8] Pooran Mal Etc vs Director Of Inspection,1974 AIR 348, 1974 SCR (2) 704

54 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All