R.K. Anand v. UOI
Section 164 is brought
Absence of the original microchip can prove inconclusive only if the identity of the people is in question. In the case of R. K. Anand he never questioned the video in terms of the fact that he was not there in the video.
I.U. Khan on the other hand denies the fact that “bada sahib” is R. K. Anand. However, the court felt that the conduct f I.U.Khan was highly wrong as he was meeting the witness like that and was directing him to a “bada sahib”, irrespective of who it was. Thus, the court found him guilty. In addition to that the original microchip against IU Khan was present. This made the case stronger.
The sting operation, the court held, in itself was not wrong because it was in the interest public. The court rejected the argument that the sting operation is obstruction of justice or was a media trial in any manner. It only intended to expose a crime and did not intend to instigate one.
The court assesses the case in totality.
Section 53– Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer.
- Who can carry out examination: medical practitioner as defined under Section 2(h) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and whose name has been entered in a State Medical Register.
There are two laboratories which work 1) National Laboratories 2) State Laboratories.
- The examination is conducted of the person who is accused or arrested. This is done on a reasonable belief that there is a need for this to be carried out
- The medical examiner shall conduct this at the request of the police and not the magistrate. The police should not be below the rank of a sub-inspector
- The tests which are conducted should be necessary for the particular.
- These tests may be compelled.. “reasonably necessary.”
- The definition of what can be examined is included. For example, dental records are not included but these tests are included.
M. Prakash v. State of Karnataka –deals with self-incrimination through compulsive medical tests.
DNA tests are very expensive, but it is less fungible. DNA kryptonite is in the chain of custody. The DNA evidence flow must be shown to be transparent and it must be shown that there has been no change of hands. Because it can be contaminated easily.
Also, there are issues of Right to Privacy which come about. This came up in the case of R. v. C.C.S. York says that there is
Priya Dharshini case.
167 – gives the police the power to interrogate
- Third degree interrogation: physical pain, but will include psychological duress. This is accusatory and leading questions will be posed. It is illegal.
- Good Cop and Bad Cop
- Light on the eyes and high pitched questions is the most common technique.
- The police may detain person for more than 24 hours if it has to complete the investigation. The magistrate may order a further investigation of 15day max. A competent magistrate may also order the detention for a period of 90days, or 60days. After these days a bail needs to be given.
- Torture is that which is causing mental or physical harm which is direct and not incidental in nature. This is defined under Article 1 f the Torture Convention.
- The ticking time bomb scenario gives justification to the time bomb.
- However, the evidence got out of the torture can be used under Section 27 if it can be corroborated by evidence.
- Selvi vs. State of Karnataka– Held that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.