Understanding the Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Trials: An Analysis of Recent Cases

The admissibility of evidence is a key concept in the criminal justice system. Evidence that is not admissible is not allowed to be presented in court for consideration by a judge or jury. In order for evidence to be deemed admissible, it must meet certain legal criteria, including relevance, authentication, and the avoidance of prejudice. Due to its significance, much of the legal body of common law has developed around the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials.Recent Supreme Court of India cases such as Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and Others (2000 SCC CRI 1275) and Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail vs. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr. (2007 SCC 8 254) among others, have further established the admissibility as well as the scrutiny of certain statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, as well as the necessity to seek corroboration from independent sources.In the former case, the Supreme Court allowed appeals and set aside the impugned order, granting leave applied for and thus regularising the appeal filed in the High Court.

The Court also opined that a statement recorded by customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence. The Court then added that it has to be tested whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether it is vitiated on account of any of the premises envisaged in Section 24 of the Evidence Act, following which it has to be determined whether it has been accepted as evidence in the case.

In the latter case, the Supreme Court noted that a confession only if found to be voluntary and free from pressure can be accepted, and requires a closer scrutiny. It further elucidated on the principle laid down by the Court in CCE v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. (2000) 7 SCC 53 which held that inculpatory statements made by any person to a gazetted officer must still pass the tests prescribed in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. If such a statement is impaired by any of the vitiating premises enumerated in Section 24, then that statement will be rendered useless.It can thus be seen from the above two cases that inculpatory statements made to a gazetted officer requires closer scrutiny in order to be accepted as evidence.

The sections of the Evidence Act must be kept in mind while doing so and the statement in question must still have relevance in the case. If the statement is found to have been obtained illegally or made without the presence of a lawyer, then it may not be accepted as evidence. These statements can, however, be used to support other evidence, provided they meet the necessary criteria. Thus, admissibility of evidence is an important factor to consider while deciding the outcome of a criminal trial.

-Kunal Sinha