Judicial Precedents On Evidence Tampering
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Background: This landmark case dealt broadly with the abuse of police powers, including attempts to tamper with evidence to falsely implicate individuals.
Ruling: The Supreme Court cautioned law enforcement agencies against manipulating evidence. It stressed that tampering with evidence is a criminal offense and amounts to obstruction of justice. The Court laid down guidelines to prevent misuse of investigation powers.
Significance: This case set a precedent that tampering with evidence will attract strict penalties and can lead to the collapse of prosecution cases if the evidence is compromised.
2. V.D. Jhingan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966)
Background: The case involved allegations that crucial pieces of evidence were tampered with during investigation.
Ruling: The Supreme Court observed that any evidence shown to be tampered with loses its credibility and cannot be relied upon by courts. The Court also held that deliberate destruction or fabrication of evidence is an offense under the Indian Penal Code.
Significance: This case emphasized that courts must scrutinize the integrity of evidence and exclude any evidence that has been tampered with.
3. Bhayaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006)
Background: In this case, the accused was alleged to have destroyed important documentary evidence relevant to the case.
Ruling: The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that destruction of evidence is a serious offense and that adverse inference can be drawn against the party responsible for such destruction. The Court stressed the importance of safeguarding evidence during the trial process.
Significance: The judgment reinforced the principle that tampering or destroying evidence invites negative consequences, including presumption of guilt or adverse inference.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Background: The case involved fabrication of medical evidence by accused persons to mislead the investigation.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that fabrication or tampering of evidence strikes at the root of justice and courts should be vigilant in identifying such acts. The Court warned that offenders must be prosecuted under relevant sections of the IPC and Evidence Act.
Significance: This case underscored the judiciary’s intolerance toward evidence fabrication and emphasized the need for stern punishment to deter such acts.
5. Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana (2018)
Background: The accused tampered with electronic evidence by deleting incriminating WhatsApp messages during a criminal investigation.
Ruling: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that tampering with electronic evidence attracts penalties under the Information Technology Act as well as criminal law provisions. The Court admitted digital forensics reports as proof and emphasized technological vigilance in preventing evidence tampering.
Significance: This case highlighted modern challenges of evidence tampering in the digital era and the courts’ evolving approach to electronic evidence.
Summary of Judicial Approach:
Tampering with evidence (destruction, fabrication, alteration) is a criminal offense attracting punishment under IPC and sometimes special laws.
Courts exclude tampered evidence or draw adverse inferences against the party responsible.
Investigations must be safeguarded to maintain evidence integrity.
The judiciary is vigilant against attempts to obstruct justice through evidence manipulation.
With digital evidence, courts increasingly rely on forensic science and IT laws to detect tampering.
RELATED Blog
0 comments