Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Admissibility of Conversations - General Principles The courts have consistently held that the admissibility of recorded conversations depends on their relevance and proper identification, rather than solely on the manner of recording or legality of interception. A contemporaneous tape recording of a relevant conversation is considered a relevant fact and admissible under the Evidence Act, provided voice identification and authenticity are established ["SRI JAYARAM SINGH VS TUKA - Orissa"], ["Sri Jayaram Singh VS Tuka - Crimes"], ["FARIS SHUJA JALAI @ ANUP vs CBI - Delhi"].
Conversations Recorded in Police Custody Conversations involving co-accused who were in police custody at the time of recording are generally deemed inadmissible against them, but may still be admissible against other accused not in custody at the time, especially when corroborated by other evidence like recovery of mobile phones or SIM cards ["Faris Shuja Jalai vs Central Bureau of Investigation - Delhi"], ["FARIS SHUJA JALAI @ ANUP Vs CBI - Delhi"], ["FARIS SHUJA JALAI @ ANUP vs CBI - Delhi"], ["FARIS SHUJA JALAI @ ANUP vs CBI - Delhi"]. Notably, the courts have clarified that even if part of a conversation involving a co-accused in custody is excluded, the remaining portion can be admissible against an accused not in custody, provided other conditions are met ["Faris Shuja Jalai vs Central Bureau of Investigation - Delhi"].
Legal Validity of Recording and Interception The legality of interception or recording (e.g., whether it was legally intercepted or recorded with proper authority) does not necessarily affect admissibility. Evidence obtained through lawful or unlawful means can still be admissible if it is relevant and properly identified, as the courts focus on relevance and authenticity rather than the method of procurement ["Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M. P. R. Tripathi VS State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. C. B. I. / A. C. B. , Lucknow - Allahabad"], ["SRI RAGHAVENDRA T.C. vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Karnataka"], ["FARIS SHUJA JALAI @ ANUP vs CBI - Delhi"].
Role of Section 27 of the Evidence Act Information or conversations leading to the discovery of facts, even if obtained while the accused was in police custody, can be admissible under Section 27 if they result in discovering relevant facts, such as identity or location ["SOH TEN SENG vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR"], ["Subhash Hariram Rajbhar VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes"], [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_1964_401).
Notes on Statements Made to Police Confessions made during police custody are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26, but facts discovered as a result of information received from an accused (not necessarily a confession) can be admissible if they lead to relevant discoveries ["Subhash Hariram Rajbhar VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["Subhash Hariram Rajbhar VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes"].
Notes on Statements in Punchnama Conversations noted in the Punchnama that are explicitly recorded as not admissible in evidence reflect that courts recognize the importance of the manner of recording and the context. However, the main legal principle remains that relevance and proper identification are crucial, and inadmissibility in one context does not automatically preclude evidence from other contexts if other admissibility criteria are met ["Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M. P. R. Tripathi VS State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. C. B. I. / A. C. B. , Lucknow - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:While conversations involving co-accused in police custody are often deemed inadmissible against those in custody, recordings of relevant conversations made in the presence of independent witnesses and properly identified can be admissible against other accused not in custody at the time. The legality of interception or recording does not singularly determine admissibility; relevance, authenticity, and proper identification are paramount. The note in the Punchnama about conversations not being admissible in evidence underscores procedural caution, but courts have upheld the admissibility of such recordings based on the criteria of relevance and proper identification, regardless of how or where the conversation was recorded ["Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M. P. R. Tripathi VS State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. C. B. I. / A. C. B. , Lucknow - Allahabad"], ["SRI RAGHAVENDRA T.C. vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Karnataka"].
In criminal investigations, every piece of evidence counts, but not all conversations qualify. Imagine this scenario: one accused is in police custody, chatting with a co-accused, and the investigating officer notes in the panchnama (also spelled punchnama) that this conversation is not admissible in evidence. Can prosecutors still use it in court?
This question arises frequently in Indian criminal law: If one accused is in police custody, is having conversation with another co-accused which noted in the punchnama that conversation is not admissible in evidence? The short answer is generally no—such a conversation is inadmissible if explicitly marked as such in the panchnama. But let's dive deeper into the legal principles, judicial rulings, and practical implications to understand why.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the admissibility of recorded conversations, confessions, or statements during police investigations is tightly regulated. Tape-recorded talks or similar evidence require strict procedural compliance, including certification under Section 65B for electronic records, unless they qualify as primary evidence like the original recording Subhash Chandra Singh VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 2029.
Conversations involving an accused in custody face extra scrutiny. Section 25 bars confessions to police, and Section 26 limits statements made in custody unless before a magistrate. When a co-accused in custody speaks to another, it's often tainted by coercion concerns, making it unreliable without safeguards.
The panchnama, an official inquest report witnessing seizure or events, plays a pivotal role. If it explicitly states the conversation is not admissible, this note reflects the authorities' intent and binds the evidence's use Madansingh Hirasingh Bhakuni VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 2085. Courts view this as a procedural bar, preventing reliance on the content.
The panchnama isn't just paperwork—it's a foundational document. An explicit declaration of non-admissibility acts as a shield for the accused. As noted in key rulings, mere recording doesn't confer admissibility; the note overrides it Madansingh Hirasingh Bhakuni VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 2085.
For instance, in one case, the court rejected a tape-recorded conversation because the officer didn't instruct recording, the cassette wasn't sealed, and discrepancies existed—compounded by panchnama notes Madansingh Hirasingh Bhakuni VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 2085. This underscores that without full compliance, and especially with a non-admissibility clause, the evidence fails.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified: recording in police presence or during probes doesn't automatically make evidence admissible. Non-compliance with safeguards, like proper notation in panchnama, renders it unusable Khalid VS State of Rajasthan - 1989 0 Supreme(Raj) 621.
High courts echo this, particularly in NDPS cases. In bail applications, courts grant relief when the only link is information from a co-accused in custody. It is well settled that the information given by co-accused while in police custody is not admissible in evidence Omprakash VS State, Through Pp - 2021 Supreme(Raj) 1060. Here, absent independent proof, bail was allowed under Section 439 CrPC.
Similarly, any information given by co-accused while in police custody is not admissible in evidence, leading to bail as no other evidence connected petitioners to narcotic smuggling Manoj Rawat VS State - 2020 Supreme(Raj) 363. Another ruling: information supplied by co-accused, while in police custody, is not admissible in evidence, with investigators admitting reliance solely on such tainted info Sohanlal S/o Shri Kaluram VS State of Rajasthan - 2020 Supreme(Raj) 447.
Even for recorded talks: Moreover, the same is not admissible in evidence as at the time the conversation took place, co-accused Anand Vishwa was in police custody Paris Shuja Jalai @ Anup VS CBI - 2013 Supreme(Del) 2017. Courts excluded the custody portion but allowed the rest against non-custodial parties—highlighting nuance.
In a Delhi High Court matter, the same principle applied: inadmissibility due to custody status FARIS SHUJA JALAI @ ANUP vs CBI. At charge-framing, courts avoid deep credibility dives but still flag inadmissible portions Paris Shuja Jalai @ Anup VS CBI - 2013 Supreme(Del) 2017.
These cases show a pattern: custody conversations, especially noted inadmissible, crumble under scrutiny.
While the rule is firm, exceptions exist:- Re-recording or Overturn: If properly re-recorded or inadmissibility challenged via legal process, it may become usable.- Partial Admissibility: Portions from non-custodial co-accused might stand, e.g., even if the portion attributed to the co-accused (who was in police custody) is excluded... admissible as against the Petitioner Paris Shuja Jalai @ Anup VS CBI - 2013 Supreme(Del) 2017.- Telephonic Intercepts: Legality of interception might not always bar use, per some views MAHANT PRASAD RAM TRIPATHI @ M.P.R. TRIPATHI vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. C.B.I. / A.C.B., LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER.- Absent panchnama note, admissibility hinges on full compliance—no automatic exclusion.
For investigators:- Explicitly state admissibility in panchnama to avoid bars.- Seal recordings, certify under Section 65B, and gather independent evidence.
For defense lawyers:- Challenge via panchnama notes early.- Highlight custody taint in bail/charge-framing.- Demand proof beyond co-accused statements.
Courts typically exclude such evidence if noted inadmissible, protecting fair trials.
This is general information based on precedents—not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case, as outcomes vary by facts.
Therefore, whether the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was intercepted or not and whether it was done legally or not, would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against the applicant. ... The applicant had sought his discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the telephonic conversation recorded on the digital voice recorder was not admissible ....
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 police inspector. Sheikh gave evidence of the talk. ... Here the police officers gave direct evidence of what they saw and what they did and what they recorded as a result of voluntary permission granted by Dr Motwani. The tape-recorded #HL_START....
Moreover, the same is not admissible in evidence as at the time the conversation took place, co-accused Anand Vishwa was in police custody. ... So, even if the portion attributed to the co-accused (who was in police custody) is excluded from the conversation, the same would be admissible as against the Petitioner as he was not in police #HL_STA....
Moreover, the same is not admissible in evidence as at the time the conversation took place, co- accused Anand Vishwa was in police custody. ... So, even if the portion attributed to the co-accused (who was in police custody) is excluded from the conversation, the same would be admissible as against the Petitioner as he was not in police #HL_ST....
Moreover, the same is not admissible in evidence as at the time the conversation took place, co-accused Anand Vishwa was in police custody. ... So, even if the portion attributed to the co-accused (who was in police custody) is excluded from the conversation, the same would be admissible as against the Petitioner as he was not in police #HL_STA....
Therefore, whether the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was intercepted or not and whether it was done legally or not, would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence ... on the ground that the telephonic conversation recorded on the digital voice recorder was not admissible in evidence, but the learned trial court has rejected the a....
Moreover, the same is not admissible in evidence as at the time the conversation took place, co- accused Anand Vishwa was in police custody. ... So, even if the portion attributed to the co-accused (who was in police custody) is excluded from the conversation, the same would be admissible as against the Petitioner as he was not in police#HL_EN....
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....
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....
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....
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 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 also submitted that it is well settled that any information supplied by co-accused, while in police custody, is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that except the said piece of evidence, 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.
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
