Question: Can evidence obtained by committing the offence of theft be admitted in a case of criminal nature? Give reasons. [UPHJS 2000, BIHAR J 2011, UPCJ 1996, R.J.S. 1999] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Can evidence obtained by committing the offence of theft be admitted in a case of criminal nature? Give… Read More »

Question: Can evidence obtained by committing the offence of theft be admitted in a case of criminal nature? Give reasons. [UPHJS 2000, BIHAR J 2011, UPCJ 1996, R.J.S. 1999] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Can evidence obtained by committing the offence of theft be admitted in a case of criminal nature? Give reasons.] Answer Admissibility will be of only of relevant things, which are legally relevant as allowed under the Indian Evidence Act. Admissibility...

Question: Can evidence obtained by committing the offence of theft be admitted in a case of criminal nature? Give reasons. [UPHJS 2000, BIHAR J 2011, UPCJ 1996, R.J.S. 1999]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Can evidence obtained by committing the offence of theft be admitted in a case of criminal nature? Give reasons.]

Answer

Admissibility will be of only of relevant things, which are legally relevant as allowed under the Indian Evidence Act. Admissibility is determined as per the rules of evidence.

The only criteria regarding the admissibility of evidence in the Indian court of law is “relevance”. So, even if the evidence is procured illegally or immorally or clandestinely i.e. through sting operation or by theft, such evidence is still admissible under the Law of Evidence act.

It is immaterial how and in what manner the evidence is procured. Hence, it can be said that under the Indian Evidence Act the means of procurement of evidence doesn’t matter, what matters only is the ends i.e. the evidence. That is why the Indian evidence act is said to be an immoral act.

Though illegally obtained evidence is admissible, the value of such evidence may be affected as it was ruled that improperly obtained evidence will be analysed with due caution by the court. The Supreme Court of India has explicitly held in the case of Pooran Mal Etc v. Director Of Inspection of Income Tax, 1974 AIR 348, 1974 SCR (2) 704 that there is no construction of fundamental rights in the constitution that can be construed in a manner so as to exclude the evidence obtained in an illegal search.

Further, in the landmark judgment of RM Malkani v. State of Maharastra (1974) SC, the apex court held that: Admissibility of evidence is independent of and irrespective of the fact as to how evidence is procured is an illegal, immoral, or an improper manner, such evidence remains admissible before the court. Therefore, the illegality of procuration of evidence doesn’t render it admissible be it even obtained by committing the offence of theft.

In India, the State of Baldev Singh, [6 S.C.C. (1999)] came close to an exclusionary rule akin to the U.S.A. In this case, the issue was should the evidence obtained in breach of Section 50 of the NDPS Act admissible. It was said in the judgement that Section 50 grants the accused certain procedural safeguards, a right is created which creates an obligation on the police officer to follow such procedures. Here, illegally obtained evidence was rejected. But the ratio is limited to the cases under the NDPS act.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-11-13T07:03:41+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story