Supreme Court Rules ‘Panchnamas’ Prepared Unlawfully to be Inadmissible in Court
The Supreme Court has made a significant ruling regarding the admissibility of ‘panchnamas’, which are documents recording the proceedings of searches and seizures, in a court of law. The Court has stated that if these documents are prepared in a manner that violates Section 162 CrPC, they will be deemed inadmissible. Specifically, the Court raised concerns about the role played by witnesses in these proceedings and their failure to adequately disclose how objects were discovered during searches.
Court Criticizes Witnesses’ Role in Panchnamas
- The Court noted that witnesses to the panchnamas and seizures merely acted as attestors to the documents.
- They did not provide their own accounts of how the objects were discovered.
- The Court emphasized that the proceedings lacked lawful validity due to this lack of disclosure.
Unlawful Preparation of Panchnamas
The Court scrutinized the preparation of panchnamas and found them to be unlawful. Witnesses who attested to these documents failed to provide detailed accounts of how objects were discovered, who initiated the discovery, and the manner in which these discoveries occurred. As a result, the Court determined that these police-recorded proceedings lacked lawful validity, which casts doubt on the prosecution’s collection of evidence.
Supreme Court Bench and the Case
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Sanjay Kumar, was hearing an appeal against an MP HC judgment. The appeal concerned the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for Omprakash Yadav, as well as the death penalty for Raja Yadav and Rajesh Yadav, in relation to the kidnapping and murder of a 15-year-old boy. Omprakash Yadav was convicted under Section 364A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while Raja Yadav and Rajesh Yadav were held guilty under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B and Section 364A read with Section 120B, respectively.
Concerns Over Investigating Officer’s Handling
The Court expressed concerns about the Investigating Officer’s handling of the proceedings, which severely undermined the prosecution’s case.
Precedent Set in Previous Cases
The Court referred to the precedent set in the case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra through CBI Bombay (2013) 13 SCC 1. In this case, the Court emphasized the primary intention behind the panchnama, which is to prevent tricks and unfair dealings by officers conducting searches and to ensure that any incriminating evidence found was not planted. The Court ruled that a panchnama would be inadmissible if it violated Section 162 of the CrPC.
Necessity for Proving the Contents of Panchnamas
The Court highlighted the necessity for proving the contents of the panchnama and the obligation of the Investigating Officer to depose the exact statement made by the accused. It cited the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843, where the Court reaffirmed the requirement for proving the contents of the panchnama.
Admission of Evidence Conducted in Defiance of the Law
The Court also referred to the case of Khet Singh v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 380, where it was pointed out that evidence obtained through searches and seizures conducted in complete defiance of the law or with the possibility of evidence tampering or interpolation cannot be admitted in court.
Acquittal of Appellants
Ultimately, due to infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
For more information, you can read other reports about the judgment here.
Case title: Rajesh v State of MP
Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). 793-794 of 2022
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment
Follow DelhiBreakings on Google News
Superfast News Coverage by DelhiBreakings.com team.
For Superfast national news and Delhi Breaking Stories visit us daily at https://delhibreakings.com
