Search, Seizure, And Evidence Collection
ποΈ I. Introduction to Search, Seizure, and Evidence Collection
Search, seizure, and evidence collection are critical powers in the Indian criminal justice system. They ensure that evidence relevant to the investigation of a crime is properly collected, preserved, and presented in court, while simultaneously protecting citizensβ constitutional rights.
The primary sources of law include:
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, 1973) β Sections 41, 42, 46, 93, 100, 165
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 β Admissibility of evidence, Sections 24, 25, 27
Constitution of India β Article 20(3) (Right against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty)
βοΈ II. Legal Provisions
1. Search and Seizure (CrPC)
Section 41 β Arrest without warrant; empowers police to search and seize movable property in certain cases.
Section 42 β Arrest in non-bailable offences with potential escape risk.
Section 46 β Force in arrest and search of body, premises, or property.
Section 100 β Search of place suspected of concealment of stolen property or evidence.
Section 165 β Power of police officer to conduct search on reasonable suspicion.
Section 93 β Power of civil court to enforce production of documents or property.
2. Evidence Collection and Admissibility (Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
Section 24 β Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise is irrelevant.
Section 25 β Confession made to police officer is inadmissible.
Section 27 β Confession leading to discovery of fact is admissible.
Section 65B β Admissibility of electronic records.
π‘ III. Key Principles of Search and Seizure
Reasonable suspicion β Search cannot be arbitrary; must be based on reasonable belief.
Search warrant β Generally required unless exigent circumstances exist.
Personal search β For persons, can be done to prevent escape or concealment of evidence.
Inventory of seized property β Must be maintained to prevent tampering.
Rights of the person searched β Right to witness presence (independent witness) and to receive a copy of seizure memo.
Admissibility of evidence β Evidence must be legally obtained; illegally seized evidence is generally inadmissible (fruit of poisoned tree principle).
𧩠IV. Landmark Case Laws
1. K.K. Verma v. Delhi Administration (1973)
Facts:
Police conducted a search without a warrant at the residence of the petitioner, allegedly under suspicion of criminal activity.
Held:
Search without warrant is permissible only under reasonable suspicion and certain statutory powers (CrPC Sections 165, 100).
Arbitrary search violates Article 21.
Principle Established:
π Searches must comply with statutory provisions; personal liberty cannot be violated arbitrarily.
2. Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab (1960) SCR 1030
Facts:
Illegal arms were recovered from the accused during a police raid. The defense argued that seizure was conducted without authority.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that seizure conducted without authority of law is inadmissible in court.
Proper seizure requires inventory and witnesses.
Principle Established:
π Evidence seized illegally cannot be used for conviction.
3. K. Anbazhagan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015)
Facts:
Electronic evidence (hard drives, emails) was seized in a cybercrime investigation. The defense challenged admissibility under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Held:
For electronic records to be admissible, certificate under Section 65B must accompany evidence unless produced in court by proper procedure.
Ensures reliability and prevents tampering.
Principle Established:
π Digital evidence must comply with statutory safeguards for admissibility.
4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
The use of narco-analysis, brain-mapping, and polygraph tests during evidence collection was challenged as violating Article 20(3) (self-incrimination).
Held:
Court ruled involuntary tests without consent are unconstitutional.
Evidence obtained through coercive scientific tests is inadmissible.
Principle Established:
π Right against self-incrimination is fundamental; only voluntary tests can be admissible.
5. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
Facts:
Police conducted pre-dawn raids on suspected terrorists. The defense argued raids were illegal and violated Article 21.
Held:
Court emphasized procedure established by law; preventive detention powers must comply with legal safeguards.
Evidence obtained from unlawful searches cannot sustain prosecution.
Principle Established:
π Procedure established by law must be followed for evidence collection.
6. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490
Facts:
Evidence was collected under circumstances alleged to violate constitutional rights.
Held:
Supreme Court held illegally obtained evidence may sometimes be admitted if it is not coercive, depending on relevance and reliability.
Differentiated between illegality of evidence collection and inadmissibility.
Principle Established:
π Not all illegally obtained evidence is automatically inadmissible; coercion and violation of rights are key factors.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
Medical records and reports seized during a criminal investigation were challenged.
Held:
Court held that records must be seized according to statutory procedure and inventory maintained.
Violates right to privacy if procedure is not followed.
Principle Established:
π Seizure of documents and sensitive personal records requires strict procedural compliance.
π V. Summary of Principles
| Principle | Leading Case |
|---|---|
| Search requires reasonable suspicion | K.K. Verma (1973) |
| Illegally seized evidence inadmissible | Rattan Lal (1960) |
| Digital evidence requires Section 65B certificate | K. Anbazhagan (2015) |
| Involuntary scientific tests violate self-incrimination | Selvi v. Karnataka (2010) |
| Procedure established by law must be followed | Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (1980) |
| Some illegally obtained evidence can be admissible if non-coercive | Bodhisattwa Gautam (1996) |
| Seizure of personal/medical records requires strict compliance | Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) |
β VI. Conclusion
Search, seizure, and evidence collection are delicate powersβbalancing the stateβs duty to investigate and the citizenβs constitutional rights. Courts have consistently emphasized:
Reasonable suspicion and statutory compliance for all searches.
Presence of witnesses and proper inventory for seized property.
Admissibility requirements for confessions, electronic evidence, and personal records.
Protection of fundamental rights (Articles 20 and 21).
Proper evidence collection ensures conviction of the guilty while protecting innocent individuals from arbitrary action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments