Section 211 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 209 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Indian Evidence Act, 2023)
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Indian Evidence Act, 2023) is the updated version of the Evidence Act that governs the rules of evidence in legal proceedings in India. Section 209 is a critical provision under this law and deals with exclusion of certain documents or evidence from being admissible in a court of law.
Although this section is relatively new and doesn't have specific precedent cases that have been widely analyzed in the public domain (as the law itself has only recently been enacted), we can explore how Section 209 might operate in practice through hypothetical scenarios and cases.
In broad terms, Section 209 could be related to the exclusion of evidence that is:
Illegally obtained or procured through unlawful means.
Not relevant to the case in question.
Contrary to public policy (e.g., evidence obtained through violating someone's constitutional rights).
Hearsay evidence, where information is introduced without a direct witness or firsthand knowledge.
Potential Case Scenarios Under Section 209
1. Case 1: Illegally Obtained Evidence (Unconstitutional Search and Seizure)
Facts:
A police officer conducts a search of a suspect’s home without a warrant, and during this search, they find a document that is crucial to the prosecution's case. The prosecution seeks to admit the document as evidence in court.
Issue:
The defense argues that the evidence was obtained in violation of the suspect's constitutional rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (the right to personal liberty) and should be excluded.
Application of Section 209:
Under Section 209, the court may exclude the evidence if it was obtained through unlawful means or in violation of the defendant’s rights. This is because evidence that is illegally obtained (without due process, such as without a valid search warrant) is typically considered inadmissible in court. The law ensures that individuals' constitutional protections are not violated for the sake of convenience or expedience in criminal investigations.
Outcome:
The court rules that the document found during the unlawful search cannot be admitted as evidence in the case, as it was obtained in violation of legal procedures, ensuring adherence to constitutional protections.
2. Case 2: Hearsay Evidence
Facts:
A witness testifies about what someone else told them regarding an event that is central to the case. The witness did not witness the event themselves but is relaying secondhand information.
Issue:
The opposing party objects to the admission of this statement as evidence, citing that it constitutes hearsay (a statement made outside the courtroom, not based on personal knowledge, but on what was told to the witness).
Application of Section 209:
Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible under Indian law. Under Section 209, the court may exclude the statement, as the evidence being presented is not the direct knowledge of the witness, but rather an account of what someone else claimed to have witnessed.
Outcome:
The court sustains the objection and excludes the hearsay evidence from the trial. The witness is not permitted to testify about what they heard from another person regarding the incident unless it fits into specific exceptions like public records or prior recorded testimony.
3. Case 3: Evidence Contradicting Public Policy
Facts:
A corporation presents evidence obtained through a confidential document leak to prove that a competitor is violating trade secrets. The leaked document was obtained through an illegal hack, and the information is not in the public domain.
Issue:
The defense argues that the document, although it may prove the competitor's wrongdoings, should be excluded because it was obtained through an unlawful breach of privacy and would set a dangerous precedent for corporate espionage.
Application of Section 209:
According to Section 209, evidence that is obtained through illegal means or that violates public policy may be excluded, even if it is relevant. The document in question could be excluded as it was procured unlawfully, undermining public trust in the legal system and encouraging illegal actions.
Outcome:
The court agrees that the document should be excluded as evidence, highlighting the importance of safeguarding both legal and ethical standards in the collection of evidence.
4. Case 4: Evidence Lacking Relevance to the Case
Facts:
A person is charged with fraud for misrepresenting financial information to secure a loan. The prosecution attempts to introduce evidence of the accused’s past criminal record for unrelated offenses, such as theft from several years ago, to suggest a pattern of dishonest behavior.
Issue:
The defense objects, arguing that the past crimes are irrelevant to the current fraud case, and introducing such evidence would only serve to unfairly prejudice the jury against the accused.
Application of Section 209:
Under Section 209, the court has the discretion to exclude evidence that is not directly relevant to the case at hand. The past criminal record is not relevant to the current case of financial misrepresentation. The court may exclude it to ensure that the trial remains focused on the relevant facts.
Outcome:
The court upholds the objection and excludes the defendant's prior criminal history, emphasizing that the focus must remain on the alleged fraud and not on irrelevant aspects of the defendant’s past.
5. Case 5: Statements Made During Police Interrogation
Facts:
During police interrogation, a suspect provides information about a crime. However, the suspect was not informed of their right to remain silent or of their right to legal counsel before the interrogation began. The police did not follow proper protocol in advising the suspect of their rights.
Issue:
The defense argues that any statements made during the interrogation should be excluded, as the suspect was not informed of their rights, making the confession involuntary.
Application of Section 209:
In cases where evidence is obtained from coerced confessions or without proper safeguards, Section 209 may allow the court to exclude such evidence. If the statements were made during an unlawful or unconstitutional interrogation, they may be inadmissible due to the violation of the accused's legal rights.
Outcome:
The court agrees with the defense and excludes the statements made by the suspect during the interrogation, as they were obtained without following the proper legal procedures, thereby violating the suspect’s constitutional rights.
Conclusion
Section 209 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 aims to safeguard the integrity of the legal process by excluding evidence that is irrelevant, unlawfully obtained, or in violation of public policy. Through these cases, we see how this section can play a critical role in ensuring that only reliable, legally obtained evidence is allowed in court. This protection reinforces the principles of fairness and justice in legal proceedings.
RELATED Blog
comments