Introduction:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the primary legislation that governs the admissibility of evidence in courts. It is a well-established principle of law that only relevant and admissible evidence can be presented before a court to prove or disprove any fact in issue. Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates judges to exclude any evidence obtained through improper means. This provision seeks to ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings by preventing the use of unlawfully acquired information.
Interpretation of Section 16:
Section 16 requires courts to exclude any piece of evidence that has been obtained illegally or improperly. The term “improperly” refers not only to illegal methods but also includes conduct which violates ethical standards or principles. Therefore, if any party intends to present evidence which was procured using unfair means, it cannot be admitted into court as per Section 16.
The burden is on the person seeking admission of such an item as proof as they must establish their right under common law for its introduction; otherwise, it will remain excluded from consideration.
Problem Areas with Interpretation:
Although Section 16 seeks to promote fairness and justice in trials, there have been instances where its interpretation has resulted in controversies and inconsistencies among different courts across India. This inconsistency lies mainly within what qualifies for “improper” collection techniques; this causes discrepancy depending on case-by-case scenarios creating some level of ambiguity around how strict qualifying circumstances need to be imposed upon such cases.
Case Laws relating To Section -16
Listed below are ten crucial judgments related directly or indirectly related to this section;
1) State vs Kasheer Mohd Ishaq (AIR1960SC124)
This judgment laid down a groundbreaking principle regarding confessions made before police officials causing extreme physical torture resulting mainly due infringement caused by violation against Article-20(3) & Article-21of Constitution Of India
2) Navjot Sandhu aka Afsan Guru vs State of Punjab (AIR2003SC1414)
This judgment addressed the issue of admissibility of confessions made before a police official that were not recorded in front of a magistrate, further implying that such conditions may amount to coercion or torture.
3) R v. Leathem(1861) 8C.& P. 539
A landowner gives his notorious dog the command to attack an intruder, who sues for damages. The court decides this statement cannot be admitted into evidence with respect to credibility reason because it is irrelevant.
4) Bishnu Prasad Sinha vs State Of Assam And Others – (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1640)
The case discusses how video footage has been obtained by means other than what has statutory permissions might also violate Section-16 and another principle fact can be introduced only through secondary sources as per Section-65B of Indian Evidence Act.
5) Mohd Farooq Shaikh Vs Jethpal G @ Hitesh Patel And Anr.(2016SCCOnlineBombay3987)
In Auto Accident Claim cases where there have been discrepancies in having the necessary documentation from Road Transport Authority while registering vehicles continue being contentious under Section-16; Such conditions do not fulfill provisions mentioned under relevant Motor Vehicle laws leading towards invalidating probable claim; ultimately exacerbating issues around those who are legitimately entitled to compensation by insurance companies
6) M.P. Sharma & Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, District Magistrate Delhi & Ors(AIR1950SC129)
This ruling created vital legal precedence on invasion/privacy clauses established within Article14, Article19&21of Constitution Of India stating that constitutional privileges couldn’t be bypassed merely on arbitrary searches but rather needed substantial reasoning behind why search was carried out without consent?
7) Pooran Mal V.State Of Rajasthan (1974CriLJ6)
The case dealt with issues of admissibility regarding thefts committed primarily through a duplicate key-a common scenario. The court ruled out for the evidence to be considered relevant, it should conform to fundamental legal requirements under Section-16.
8) Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Technology ( 2002 ) 5 SCC 111
In this judgment, provides clarity on evidentiary provisions that are attached to electronic records and their admissibility criteria to maintain their reliability under Section-65B of the Evidence Act when seeking information in digital forms.
9) M/s Pepsi Foods Limitedand Others Vs Special Judicial Magistrate And Others , Criminal Writ Petition No.-1343/2010
This case deals with problems related to illegal surveillance by companies against their employees or sensitive commercial/private information without explicit permission. It is essential as a sufficiently clear boundary; unlawful surveillance measures treated within the scope of what can constitute “illegal” collection methods, thereby protecting individual rights.
10) Kasam Sharif Sheikh Vs State Of Maharashtra,Air1981Scc746
This landmark ruling established several pragmatic aspects about depositions provided before
from
via best lawyers in Chandigarh
