Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Conversation between accused persons recorded in a punchnama is considered relevant and admissible evidence. The recording, whether intercepted legally or not, does not affect its admissibility as evidence ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1089"]. The court recognizes that such contemporaneous recordings are akin to photographs of incidents and are admissible under the Evidence Act, provided they are relevant and properly identified ["2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2103"].
The admissibility of recorded conversations, including telephonic or in-person discussions, hinges on their relevance, authenticity, and proper handling. The courts have upheld that recordings made without the knowledge of the talkers can be relevant and admissible, especially if they are contemporaneous and accurately recorded ["2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2103"].
Statements or conversations recorded in police custody are subject to strict legal rules. Confessions made to police officers while in custody are generally inadmissible unless they fall under specific exceptions such as discovery of facts (Section 27 of the Evidence Ordinance). Even then, only the part of the conversation that relates directly to the discovery is admissible ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1089"], ["
Union of India vs Victor Nnamdi Okpo - Delhi
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 191"], ["Sri Jayaram Singh VS Tuka - Crimes
"], ["SOH TEN SENG vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
"], [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_1964_401), ["2023 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 329"], ["1991 0 Supreme(Ori) 23"], ["Subhash Hariram Rajbhar VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes
"].The courts have clarified that conversations or confessions recorded during police custody, especially telephonic or in-person, are admissible if they are relevant, properly identified, and their authenticity is established. The legality of interception or recording does not necessarily impact admissibility, as long as the evidence is relevant and properly proved ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1089"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2103"].
Overall, the notes of conversations between accused persons, whether recorded in person or via telephone, are admissible if they meet criteria of relevance, authenticity, and proper procedure, regardless of whether the interception was lawful ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1089"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2103"].
References:- ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1089"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2103"]- ["UNION OF INDIA vs VICTOR NNAMDI OKPO - Delhi"]- ["
Union of India vs Victor Nnamdi Okpo - Delhi
"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 191"]- ["Sri Jayaram Singh VS Tuka - Crimes
"]- ["SOH TEN SENG vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
"]- [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_1964_401)- ["2023 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 329"]- ["1991 0 Supreme(Ori) 23"]- ["Subhash Hariram Rajbhar VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes
"]
In the realm of criminal trials in India, evidence plays a pivotal role in determining guilt or innocence. One intriguing question often arises: Is a conversation between two accused persons in , noted in the , ? This issue touches on fundamental principles of fairness, procedural safeguards, and the . With rising use of recordings and memos like (a procedural record prepared by police witnesses), understanding admissibility is crucial for legal practitioners, accused persons, and the public.
This blog post delves into the legal criteria, drawing from statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and case insights. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The admissibility of any recorded conversation or noted statement from is governed primarily by the . Key sections include:
Courts have consistently held that statements or conversations obtained in custody raise concerns over , , and tampering. Mere notation in a —a memo documenting seizure or proceedings—does not automatically confer admissibility, especially if it involves confessional elements.
For a conversation between accused persons in custody to be potentially admissible (even if noted in ), it must meet stringent criteria:
However, these conditions are rarely met for inter-accused conversations in custody due to inherent risks.
The biggest hurdle is Sections 25 and 26, which render most custody confessions inadmissible. A conversation between two accused, overheard or noted by police and recorded in , often qualifies as a ' in custody' if it admits guilt.
Even non-confessional parts are scrutinized. Under , only discovery-linked portions are allowed: Thus, a confessional statement made by an accused in custody of police which leads to discovery of a fact is admissible in evidence. But this is narrowly interpreted—only the specific fact-discovering part. 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 492
In one case, recovery evidence was dismissed because it relied on inadmissible custody statements, emphasizing: There is complete prohibition on even proving such confessions allegedly made by accused to a police officer when they were in . 2024 8 Supreme 729
notations face similar fate if they capture such conversations without presence. Courts view them suspiciously, as police-prepared documents can be influenced.
exercise extreme caution:
For example:- In a smuggling case, conviction was set aside as confessional statements to police were inadmissible, with no other evidence linking the accused. 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 492- Another ruling: No made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a , shall be proved as against such person. 2024 8 Supreme 729
These precedents underscore that -noted inter-accused talks in custody are generally inadmissible unless falling strictly under .
Prosecution must prove beyond doubt. Defence can challenge via cross-examination, highlighting custody inducement. 1964 0 Supreme(Guj) 40
| Criterion | Key Requirement | Reference ||----------|-----------------|-----------|| Authenticity | Expert voice ID, no tampering | 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 4401 || Confessions | Inadmissible unless | 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 386 || Procedural | Notice, | 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 4401 || Relevance | Pertains to offence | 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 4401 || Lawfulness | No violation | 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 1233 |
Conversations between two accused in , noted in , are typically inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, barring narrow exceptions. Courts prioritize protecting against coerced evidence, demanding authenticity, relevance, and safeguards. Insights from NDPS and other cases reinforce this, often leading to acquittals or bail when such evidence is sole reliance.
Key Takeaways:- Prioritize presence for confessions.- Challenge custody statements vigorously.- Seek expert analysis for recordings.- Always corroborate with independent proof.
This evolving area reflects India's commitment to fair trials. Stay informed, but for case-specific guidance, consult a legal expert.
References:- 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 4401 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 1233 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 386 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 492 2024 8 Supreme 729 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1060
Last updated: Current as of latest judicial trends. Not legal advice.
#PoliceCustodyEvidence, #IndianEvidenceAct, #LegalAdmissibility
He has further submitted that the recording of telephonic conversation between two accused persons is not the sole evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant and there are some other evidences also including the statement of co-accused person and some independent persons. ... R., 1955 AC 197, an accused was found in unlawful possession of some ammunition in a search conducted by two police officers who were not authorised under the....
The only suggestion given was that the contraband recovered from the other person was planted on the respondent. It may be noted that no name of the other person was given in the suggestion. ... police station in-charge of the area it caused prejudice to the accused/respondent. ... During cross examination, the witness affirmed that Section 50 notice, punchnama and other seizure proceedings were conducted in English and punchnama contents were explained to t....
The only suggestion given was that the contraband recovered from the other person was planted on the respondent. It may be noted that no name of the other person was given in the suggestion. The suggestion given about tampering of samples was denied by the witness. ... During cross examination, the witness affirmed that Section 50 notice, punchnama and other seizure proceedings were conducted in English and punchnama contents were explained to the accused and witnesses. ... officer in ....
Thus, a confessional statement made by an accused in custody of police which leads to discovery of a fact is admissible in evidence. 22. ... Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be ... It pro....
not admissible as accused No. 1 was not in the police custody at the time when he made such a statement. ... The scheme thus appears to divide these cases in two classes:- (1) Confessional statements made by persons not in custody are admissible in evidence against such person in a criminal proceeding unless they are procured in the manner described in section 24 or made to a police officer (section 25) (2) ... distinctly relates to....
Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him: No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. ... A confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in the evidence except to the exte....
Just as a photograph taken without the knowledge of the person photographed can become relevant and admissible so does a tape record of a conversation unnoticed by the talkers. The Court will take care in two directions in admitting such evidence. ... Sheikh informed the police. The police laid a trap. Sheikh called Nagree at the residence. The police kept a tape recorder concealed in another room. The tape was kept in the custody of the po....
If information received from an accused person, even while in the custody of a police officer, is admissible under s. 27 of the Evidence Ordinance, a fortiori it ought to be admissible when given by an accused person before being taken into such custody. ... It is sufficient to say that such evidence was admissible under s. 27 of the Evidence Ordinance which reads: When any fact is deposed to as discovered in con....
If information received from an accused person, even while in the custody of a police officer, is admissible under s. 27 of the Evidence Ordinance, a fortiori it ought to be admissible when given by an accused person before being taken into such custody. ... It is sufficient to say that such evidence was admissible under s. 27 of the Evidence Ordinance which reads: When any fact is deposed to as discovered in con....
If information received from an accused person, even while in the custody of a police officer, is admissible under s. 27 of the Evidence Ordinance, a fortiori it ought to be admissible when given by an accused person before being taken into such custody. ... It is sufficient to say that such evidence was admissible under s. 27 of the Evidence Ordinance which reads: When any fact is deposed to as discovered in con....
Learned counsel while inviting my attention towards the statements of Investigating Officers namely Kishan Singh (PW-1) and Kishna Ram (PW-2), has submitted that from their evidence, it is clear that except the information supplied by co-accused and the confessional statements of the petitioner recorded while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record to connect petitioner - Sunil Kumar with the commission of crime. It is also argued that it is well settled that the information given by co-accused while in police custody is not admissible in evidence.
It is argued that it is well settled that an information given by an accused person while in police custody is not admissible in evidence. It is submitted that from the perusal of the charge-sheet, it is clear that except the information given by co-accused Rajesh Kumar while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the statements of Investigating Officer (PW-2 Sumer Singh) and it is urged that even the Investigating Offi....
It is also argued that it is well settled that any information given by co-accused while in police custody is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards the statements of Investigating Officer PW-2 Hanuman Ram and argued that the Investigating Officer also, in his courts statements, has specifically admitted that except the information given by the co-accused while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioners with commission of crime.
It is submitted that it is settled that the information supplied by accused person while in police custody is not admissible in evidence. It is submitted that now the statements of Investigating Officer Mohan Singh have been recorded before the trial court as PW-1, wherein he has specifically stated that no independent evidence except the information supplied by accused Pankaj, while in police custody, is available against the petitioners.
Apart from that, referring to the evidence of Police Inspector, he made the submission about the circumstances in which the statement was obtained from the respondent-accused. Hence, he made the submission that it is an undisputed fact that, even according to the prosecution, Ex.P.1, the explanation letter written by the accused, is obtained in the Circuit House, by which time, the accused was already in the police custody. He submitted that it is the police who told the accused person that he has to write this Ex.P.1 and the contents thereof in the manner as told or suggested by the police.....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
