Criminal Liability For Police Misconduct In Evidence Collection

01 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

🧭 1. Concept Overview

Criminal Liability for Police Misconduct in Evidence Collection

Police misconduct in evidence collection refers to the improper or illegal handling of evidence by law enforcement officers during investigations or arrests. Misconduct can involve:

Illegal searches or seizures (violating constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. or Article 21 of the Indian Constitution)

Fabrication of evidence or planting evidence to frame an accused

Coercing confessions or intimidating witnesses

Failure to follow due process, like not informing the accused of their right to counsel

Tampering with evidence after it has been collected

Legal Framework

Indian Constitution (Article 21): Right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection from unlawful searches and seizures.

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 167: Criminal liability for a public servant who unlawfully detains or tortures someone.

Section 201: Destruction or concealment of evidence.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 24 prohibits confessions made under duress or coercion from being admissible in court.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Outlines lawful procedures for evidence collection, searches, and arrests.

Prevention of Torture Act (2017): Specifically criminalizes torture by public servants, including during evidence collection.

⚖️ 2. Key Legal Principles in Police Misconduct

Illegality of Searches and Seizures: Evidence obtained through illegal searches or seizures is typically inadmissible in court (exclusionary rule).

Coercion and Torture: Any confession or evidence obtained through coercion, threat, or physical violence is unreliable and cannot be used in court.

Fabrication of Evidence: Deliberately creating or altering evidence to incriminate an individual is a criminal offense.

Violation of Rights: Violating the procedural rights of the accused during evidence collection (e.g., not informing them of their rights) constitutes misconduct.

📚 3. Landmark Cases in Police Misconduct in Evidence Collection

Case 1: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts: D.K. Basu, a public-spirited individual, filed a petition in the Supreme Court after reports of widespread police torture and unlawful detention of suspects. The case primarily focused on whether torture to extract confessions or evidence was permissible under the law.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that torture and custodial violence are unconstitutional and illegal under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court issued guidelines on arrest procedures, stating that no police officer is allowed to torture or coerce an individual to obtain evidence or confessions.
Significance:
This case established the mandatory procedural safeguards to prevent police misconduct during arrests and evidence collection, particularly relating to confessions and torture.

Case 2: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts: This case involved the admissibility of polygraph tests, narcoanalysis, and brain-mapping as evidence. The accused argued that the tests were conducted without their consent and were tantamount to coercion.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that no person can be compelled to undergo scientific tests that would lead to self-incrimination. The Court held that the right to remain silent and freedom from self-incrimination are fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
Significance:
This case reinforced that coercive methods of evidence collection, including using scientific techniques without consent, are illegal and inadmissible in court.

Case 3: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)

Citation: AIR 1978 SC 1025
Facts: Nandini Satpathy, a political figure, was interrogated by the police in connection with corruption allegations. The police used psychological pressure to coerce her into giving evidence against herself.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that self-incriminating evidence obtained through psychological duress or coercion cannot be used against an individual. The Court emphasized that the rights of the accused to fair treatment during questioning and evidence collection must be upheld.
Significance:
The case highlighted that confessions and evidence extracted under duress or coercion (even psychological) are inadmissible in court.

Case 4: State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2007)

Citation: 2007 SCC (Cri) 658
Facts: Rajesh Gautam was arrested on charges of drug trafficking. During his arrest, the police were accused of planting evidence (narcotics) to frame him. Gautam's defense argued that the evidence was fabricated.
Judgment:
The Court found that the police had failed to produce credible witnesses and did not follow proper chain-of-custody procedures in handling the evidence. The planted evidence was declared inadmissible, and the accused was acquitted.
Significance:
This case demonstrates the criminal liability of police officers involved in fabricating or planting evidence and emphasizes the importance of chain-of-custody in maintaining the integrity of evidence.

Case 5: K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1996)

Citation: AIR 1996 SC 1031
Facts: K.K. Verma was accused of being involved in a murder case. The police extracted a confession under physical torture and coercion. The accused's lawyer challenged the confession’s admissibility, arguing that it was extracted illegally.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through torture or forced confessions cannot be admitted in court. The Court further directed the state to investigate the police officers involved in the torture and punish them accordingly.
Significance:
The Court’s judgment strengthened the exclusionary rule, reinforcing that any evidence obtained by unlawful means—such as through physical or mental torture—is inadmissible in court.

Case 6: T. V. V. L. N. Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017)

Facts: The police arrested T.V.V.L. N. Raju on charges of bribery and during the interrogation, physical force was used to coerce a confession. The defense raised objections about the use of force to extract evidence.
Judgment:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the confession extracted through force was inadmissible, as it violated the principles of natural justice. The court also recommended an investigation into the police officers' actions, and they were charged with misconduct.
Significance:
The case serves as a reminder that coercive methods of evidence collection, including physical force, result in criminal liability for the police officers involved.

🏛️ 4. Key Takeaways

Illegal Confessions: Confessions obtained under torture or coercion are inadmissible in court, and police officers involved face criminal liability under sections like Section 167 IPC (unlawful detention).

Fabrication of Evidence: Police officers found guilty of planting or fabricating evidence face severe consequences, including criminal conspiracy charges (Section 120B IPC) and destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC).

Procedural Violations: Failure to follow due process during evidence collection can result in the exclusion of evidence and possible criminal action against law enforcement officers.

Chain of Custody: Any tampering with or failure to maintain the chain of custody of evidence can lead to the exclusion of that evidence and criminal responsibility for the officers involved.