Criminal Liability For Tampering With Evidence In Trials
1. Concept of Tampering with Evidence
Meaning
Tampering with evidence refers to any act intended to alter, destroy, conceal, or fabricate evidence with the intent to mislead a legal proceeding or obstruct justice.
It can include:
Destroying documents, CCTV footage, or digital files.
Influencing witnesses to change statements.
Fabricating false evidence.
Concealing or removing objects/materials relevant to a case.
2. Relevant Legal Provisions (India)
Section 201 – IPC:
Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen the offender.
Punishment: Depends on the gravity of the main offence. For example:
If offence is punishable with death → imprisonment up to 7 years.
If punishable with life imprisonment → up to 3 years.
Otherwise → up to 1 year or fine.
Section 192 – IPC:
Fabricating false evidence.
Section 193 – IPC:
Punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
Section 204 – IPC:
Destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both.
Contempt of Court Act, 1971:
Tampering with evidence during an ongoing case can also amount to criminal contempt, as it interferes with the administration of justice.
3. Judicial Approach: Key Case Laws
Below are five landmark cases where the courts dealt with tampering or destruction of evidence.
Case 1: Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 317
Facts:
Sushil Sharma, in the infamous “Tandoor Murder Case,” killed his wife and attempted to burn her body in a restaurant tandoor to destroy evidence.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that attempting to destroy the body to eliminate evidence clearly falls under Section 201 IPC. The act was deliberate and intended to conceal the crime.
Importance:
The Court observed that destruction or concealment of the body is direct evidence of an intention to obstruct justice, and such tampering aggravates the gravity of the main offence.
Case 2: State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715
Facts:
A police officer tampered with records and evidence to protect accused persons. The officer altered the case diary and manipulated documents.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that police officers are custodians of justice and any manipulation of evidence by them is a serious breach of trust and obstructs justice. The act attracted criminal liability under Sections 201 and 218 IPC (for framing incorrect records).
Importance:
The Court emphasized that tampering with evidence by officials erodes public faith in the justice system.
Case 3: Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158 (Best Bakery Case)
Facts:
During the retrial of the Best Bakery massacre case, witnesses turned hostile due to intimidation and tampering.
Held:
The Supreme Court declared that witness tampering and manipulation of evidence strike at the root of fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court ordered a retrial outside Gujarat to ensure fairness.
Importance:
The case established that the judiciary will intervene to preserve the integrity of evidence and ensure justice even if proceedings must be transferred or retried.
Case 4: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172
Facts:
In an NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) case, the prosecution was accused of manipulating samples and documents to secure conviction.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that tampering with case property or samples in custody vitiates the entire prosecution case. The accused was acquitted as the chain of custody was broken and evidence unreliable.
Importance:
It reaffirmed that procedural integrity and authenticity of evidence are central to criminal justice. Even minor tampering can destroy the prosecution’s case.
Case 5: Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, (1973) 2 SCC 406
Facts:
A police officer fabricated false evidence and filed false reports in a criminal case.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that fabricating false evidence is punishable under Sections 192 and 193 IPC and is a serious offence as it directly interferes with judicial decision-making.
Importance:
The Court observed that fabricating or presenting false evidence undermines the sanctity of judicial truth-finding, and such acts must be dealt with stringently.
Case 6 (Additional): State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386
Facts:
The accused attempted to destroy and conceal material evidence related to a murder.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that destruction of evidence demonstrates a “conscious guilty mind” and is an aggravating factor when determining sentence.
Importance:
It shows that tampering not only constitutes a separate offence but can also aggravate punishment for the main crime.
4. Key Principles Derived
Mens rea (intention) is crucial — there must be intent to mislead or obstruct justice.
Destruction or concealment of material evidence itself constitutes a separate offence under IPC.
Tampering by police or prosecution attracts stricter scrutiny and punishment.
Witness tampering violates the right to a fair trial (Article 21).
Courts may order retrials or transfer cases where tampering is proven.
Fabrication of evidence invites punishment up to 7 years under Section 193 IPC.
5. Conclusion
Tampering with evidence is a grave offence that threatens the foundation of justice. Indian courts treat it as both:
a substantive crime (under IPC Sections 192–204), and
a contempt of court (interference with justice).
The judiciary’s consistent stance, as seen across these cases, is that no leniency can be shown to anyone—be it police, witness, or party—who distorts the truth or manipulates evidence.
RELATED Blog
comments