Evidence Collection And Admissibility
Evidence is the foundation of any judicial proceeding. Courts decide facts based solely on legally admissible evidence. Therefore, both collection and admissibility must follow strict standards.
I. EVIDENCE COLLECTION
1. What Is Evidence Collection?
Evidence collection refers to the systematic gathering of information, documents, statements, and material objects that may help establish the facts in dispute. In criminal cases, this includes items recovered during searches, statements of witnesses, forensic samples, electronic data, etc.
2. Essential Principles of Evidence Collection
Legality – Evidence must be collected according to procedure (e.g., proper warrants, proper chain of custody).
Relevance – Only items connected to the facts in issue are useful.
Reliability – Evidence must be preserved properly and protected from tampering.
Chain of Custody – Every person who handled the evidence must be identifiable.
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, evidence is admissible only if it is:
Relevant (Ss. 5–55)
Competent and legally obtained
Not barred by law (e.g., confessions to police officers – S. 25)
Judges have discretion to exclude unreliable or prejudicial evidence.
III. DETAILED CASE LAWS
Below are six important cases explained in detail, covering confessions, electronic evidence, search and seizure, illegally obtained evidence, and chain of custody.
1. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)
Principle: Legality of Search and Seizure under NDPS Act; Rights of Accused
This landmark judgment held that evidence collected in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act (informing the accused that they have the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer) is not automatically inadmissible, but its evidentiary value is weakened.
Key Points:
Police officers must inform the accused of their right to be searched before a senior officer.
Failure to comply may render the recovery suspect.
Courts must examine whether non-compliance affected fairness of the search.
Impact on Evidence Collection:
It emphasized procedural fairness and transparency in evidence collection, especially in drug-related offences where recovery is the most crucial piece of evidence.
2. Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Income Tax) (1974)
Principle: Illegally obtained evidence may still be admissible if relevant
The Supreme Court held that even if evidence is obtained through an illegal search (such as violation of warrant procedure), it is not automatically inadmissible so long as:
it is relevant, and
the law does not specifically prohibit its use.
Key Points:
Indian law follows the principle: the manner of obtaining evidence does not determine admissibility.
This differs from the U.S. “exclusionary rule”.
Impact on Law:
It clarified that Indian courts prioritize truth-finding over procedural technicalities, unless the law expressly forbids using such evidence.
3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005)
Principle: Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
This was the Parliament attack case. The Supreme Court held that electronic records like call data, emails, computer logs are admissible if they meet the requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Key Points:
Secondary electronic evidence requires a 65B(4) certificate.
Person in charge of the computer system must issue the certificate.
Without such certification, electronic evidence may be excluded.
Impact:
It established the early framework for admissibility of digital evidence in India.
(Note: Later modified by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), described next.)
4. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)
Principle: Mandatory nature of Section 65B Certificate
This judgment overruled parts of Navjot Sandhu and held that electronic evidence cannot be admitted unless accompanied by a proper Section 65B certificate, even if the original device is produced.
Key Points:
65B(4) certificate is mandatory for any electronic record offered as secondary evidence.
Oral evidence cannot prove electronic data.
Courts cannot relax the requirement.
Impact:
It revolutionized digital evidence law and brought strict compliance standards for:
CCTV footage
Mobile phone recordings
Emails
Social media evidence
5. Shahid Balwa v. CBI (2014)
Principle: Chain of Custody for Electronic Evidence
In the 2G spectrum case, the Delhi High Court stressed the importance of maintaining a proper chain of custody for digital devices seized during an investigation.
Key Points:
Every stage of handling a digital device must be documented.
Hash values (like MD5/SHA-1) must match to prove no tampering.
Failure to maintain chain of custody can render digital evidence unreliable.
Impact:
It strengthened procedures for forensic integrity and pushed agencies to adopt modern cyber-forensic standards.
6. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Principle: Involuntariness and Self-Incrimination; Admissibility of Confessions
The Court held that narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping without consent violate:
Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination)
Article 21 (right to personal liberty)
Key Points:
Statements obtained through coercion are inadmissible.
Even if voluntary, the statements from these tests are not confessions; at best, they are leads for further investigation.
Use of force or deception invalidates evidentiary value.
Impact:
It reinforced principles of voluntariness in confessions and highlighted constitutional protections.
7. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Principle: Right to Silence; Protection from Coercive Questioning
This case held that no person can be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them.
Key Points:
Accused has a right to not answer police questions.
Threatening or pressurizing the accused invalidates any statement.
Ensures that evidence is collected legally and ethically.
Impact:
It strengthened protection during interrogation and prevented forced confessions.
IV. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
| Legal Principle | Case Illustration |
|---|---|
| Illegally obtained but relevant evidence may be admissible | Pooran Mal |
| Proper procedure is essential for search and seizure | Baldev Singh |
| Electronic evidence requires Section 65B compliance | Anvar P.V. |
| Chain of custody must be intact for digital devices | Shahid Balwa |
| Involuntary statements are inadmissible | Selvi |
| Accused has right to silence | Nandini Satpathy |
V. CONCLUSION
Evidence collection and admissibility are governed by strict legal standards focusing on:
Legality
Relevance
Reliability
Constitutional protections
Technical compliance (especially for digital evidence)
RELATED Blog
0 comments