LI Network
Published on: October 3, 2023 at 11:26 IST
The Supreme Court has ruled that ‘panchnamas,’ which are documents recording the proceedings of searches and seizures, will not be admissible in a court of law if they are prepared in a manner that violates Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Court specifically expressed concern about the role of witnesses in these proceedings and their failure to adequately explain how objects were discovered during searches.
The Court observed that “Witnesses to the panchnamas and the seizures acted as mere attestors to the documents and did not disclose in their own words how these objects were discovered, including who initiated the discovery and the circumstances surrounding it. Therefore, these proceedings recorded by the police for the collection of evidence lack lawful validity.”
The Court closely examined the preparation of ‘panchnamas’ and found them to be in violation of the law. It noted that witnesses who attested to these documents did not provide comprehensive accounts of the discovery process, including the instigation and manner of discovery. Consequently, the Court determined that these police-recorded proceedings lacked legal validity, casting doubt on the prosecution’s evidence collection.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Sanjay Kumar, heard an appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of Omprakash Yadav with a life sentence, while Raja Yadav and Rajesh Yadav were sentenced to death for 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 found guilty under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B and Section 364A read with Section 120B, respectively.
The Court expressed concerns about the handling of the proceedings by the Investigating Officer, which significantly undermined the prosecution’s case.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra through CBI Bombay (2013), where the Court emphasized the primary purpose of ‘panchnamas’ in guarding against possible misconduct by officers executing the search and ensuring the authenticity of incriminating evidence found.
The Court further clarified that a ‘panchnama’ would be inadmissible if it violated Section 162 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the procedure required the Investigating Officer to record the search proceedings as if they were written by the panch witnesses themselves, rather than as the examination of witnesses, as outlined in Section 161 Cr. P.C.
The Court also referred to a recent three-judge bench decision in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022, reiterating the importance of proving the contents of the ‘panchnama.’
The Court stated that “the Investigating Officer, in his deposition, is obliged in law to prove the contents of the panchnama, including the exact statement attributed to the accused. To rely on the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the exact words spoken by the accused must be presented in court, not merely a mention that a discovery panchnama was drawn up because the accused agreed to retrieve an item from a specific location.”
The Court also cited the case of Khet Singh v. Union of India (2002), which highlighted that evidence could not be admitted in court if searches and seizures were conducted in violation of the law and procedure, or if there was a risk of evidence tampering or alteration.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that there were deficiencies and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants due to the benefit of the doubt.
Case Title: Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Also Read: What is Witness Protection Scheme?