Use Of Informers And Admissibility Issues
1. What are Informers?
Informers are individuals who provide information to law enforcement agencies about crimes or criminals.
They can be paid or unpaid, and sometimes may be involved in the criminal activity themselves.
Information from informers can be crucial for initiating investigations, raids, or arrests.
However, the credibility and reliability of informers often become critical issues in criminal trials.
2. Challenges with Informers’ Evidence
Informers may provide hearsay or anonymous information, which raises questions about verifiability and reliability.
The risk of fabrication, malafide motives, or entrapment exists.
Courts need to balance the need for effective policing with safeguarding defendants’ rights.
The question often arises: When and how can informer-based evidence be admissible?
3. Legal Principles Governing Use of Informers and Admissibility
Information from informers can be used as a starting point for investigation, but conviction cannot be based solely on it unless corroborated.
Courts demand corroboration by independent evidence before convicting based on informer’s tip.
Anonymous or undisclosed informers’ identities may be protected but courts still require the investigation to be thorough.
Entrapment or inducement by informers is impermissible.
The supreme court laid down guidelines on how informer evidence should be handled.
4. Important Case Laws on Use of Informers and Admissibility Issues
Case 1: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)
Facts:
Police conducted a raid based on informer’s tip and recovered illicit arms.
Issue:
Whether conviction can be based solely on informer’s tip.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that conviction cannot rest solely on the tip-off of an informer without corroboration.
Significance:
Established the principle of corroboration to prevent misuse of informer evidence.
Case 2: State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts:
Anonymous informer gave information leading to recovery of narcotics.
Issue:
Reliability of anonymous informer evidence in drug cases.
Holding:
Court held that anonymous tip-off must be verified and corroborated with independent evidence before it can be acted upon or used in court.
Significance:
Affirmed need for corroboration even in serious crimes like drug trafficking.
Case 3: Lallu Yadav v. State of Bihar (1966)
Facts:
Conviction based mainly on informer’s tip without independent evidence.
Issue:
Validity of conviction without corroboration.
Holding:
The Supreme Court quashed the conviction stating that mere reliance on informer’s information without corroboration is unsafe.
Significance:
Reinforced caution in accepting informer evidence.
Case 4: K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor (1969)
Facts:
Informer’s identity was kept secret, and conviction based on informer’s tip.
Issue:
Whether informer’s identity can be kept confidential and tip-off be relied upon.
Holding:
Court allowed anonymity of informer to protect them but emphasized the necessity of corroboration of the informer’s information by independent evidence.
Significance:
Balanced informer protection with reliability safeguards.
Case 5: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Facts:
Conviction based on tip-off by an informer and police evidence.
Issue:
Whether the informer’s tip was reliable for conviction.
Holding:
Court acquitted the accused holding that the informers were interested witnesses and their evidence was not sufficiently corroborated.
Significance:
Highlighted dangers of relying on interested informers without corroboration.
Case 6: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)
Facts:
In a case involving recovery of seized goods, informer’s information was challenged.
Issue:
Whether informer’s information alone can sustain conviction.
Holding:
Supreme Court reiterated that information given by informers must be thoroughly verified and corroborated, and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Significance:
Recent reaffirmation of established principles regarding informer evidence.
5. Summary of Principles on Informers and Evidence Admissibility
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Corroboration | Informer’s tip must be supported by independent evidence before conviction |
| Protection of Informers’ Identity | Informers may remain anonymous to protect safety |
| No Sole Reliance | Conviction cannot be based solely on informer’s tip |
| Entrapment Avoidance | Informer cannot induce or entrap accused |
| Judicial Scrutiny | Courts must critically examine informer-based evidence |
| Interest and Credibility | Courts assess whether informer has personal interest |
6. Conclusion
Informers are valuable to the criminal justice system, but their information must be treated with caution.
Courts demand strict corroboration and independent verification to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The balance between effective law enforcement and protection of accused’s rights is maintained by careful judicial scrutiny.
The jurisprudence has evolved to ensure informer evidence is neither the sole basis for conviction nor used arbitrarily.
Protection of informer identity is allowed, but it does not compromise the accused’s right to a fair trial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments