Sting Operations - Admissibility of Evidence

Sting operations are deceptive measures specifically committed to catching and collecting evidences against persons who commit crimes. In recent years we have witnessed multiple instances of sting operations exposing match fixing, bribery, buying of witnesses etc. by various news agencies and related bodies like Tehelka, NDTV etc. These sting operations are conducted with the help of hidden cameras, voice recorders, deception and pretence and therefore evidences mostly in electronic form are collected.

Recently many sting operations have exposed instances of violation of pre-natal/pre-conception sex selection prohibition by doctors, acceptance of bribes by high profile politicians, actor Shakti Kapoor promising favor to a journalist portraying to be a new comer in film industry, two leading senior councils trying to buy witnesses, MP’s accepting money for asking questions in Rajya Sabha etc.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCES RECEIVED THROUGH THEM.

Now when these sting operations have become so popular and have shown a ray of hope to Indian population which has been governed by one of the most corrupt governments in the world (India has been rated as one of the most corrupt countries), it is very essential to determine whether the evidences collected through these sting operations will be admissible in the courts of law in India.

In the celebrated judgment of Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan[1], position was made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it had observed that court need not concern itself with the method by which the evidence in question was obtained. Referring to the previous observation of SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS in Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor[2] that an evidence remains evidence even if while search and seizure, the method prescribed in CrPC was not complied with. Similar observation was of LORD GODDARD, CJ in case of Kuruma v. Reginam[3] where he had made it clear that even if the method of obtaining evidences was tortuous, it would not affect the admissibility of evidences received through those tortuous acts, was also referred.

These judgments that came much before coming of the era of sting operations, went a long way in giving sanction to such sting operations and thereby making the evidences collected through them, admissible in the court of law. These evidences collected through sting operations are admissible in the court of law but there are certain limitations to it and in certain cases these evidences though relevant are not admissible in the court of law.

FACTUM OF ENTRAPMENT

In the case of R v. Sang[4], House of Lords had observed that exclusion of evidence may only be ordered if the accused has been lured into incriminating himself by deception after committing the offence. But this factum of entrapment may also be over looked if the judge is of view that prejudicial effect of such act is out of proportion of its evidentiary value.

Similarly if a person is lured into doing an illegal act which he would otherwise not do, he would not be liable for such acts, that is to say that you cannot show a reward for entering into an illegal act and then if the person gets into doing such illegal act in pursuance of your encouragement, you implicate him for doing such illegal act. It’s like abetting and offence and then charging only the person who has been so abetted. Therefore in such cases of entrapment, the evidences received through such sting operations are not admissible.

A very interesting judgment was given in the case of R. v. Christou[5], where police had setup a jewelers shop and had portrayed a shady image of being interested in buying stolen property with an object of recovering stolen goods and also get evidences against persons involved in such offences. All the transactions at the shop were filmed and all conversations were recorded. The evidences thus collected were admitted in the court as the trick was not applied to the accused but they themselves fell into the trick.

The abovementioned judgment leaves us with a very thin line difference between the factum of entrapment and admissible evidences. It has to be ascertained whether the accused was actually lured into committing a crime or incriminating himself.

In a very recent case of Sri. Bhardwaj Media Pvt. Ltd. v. State[6], it was held by the court that when corruption of individuals in the institution is exposed, it gives an opportunity to authorities to take action against those who indulge in corruption and to clean its stables. Instead of expressing gratefulness to the persons who exposes corruption, if the institutions start taking action against those who expose corruption, the corruption is bound to progress day and night. India is already placed very high in the index of corruption and is considered one of the most corrupt countries of the world.

CONFESSIONS DURING STING OPERATIONS - Admissibility

Further any confessions made by the accused during the operation are admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act as these can be treated as extrajudicial confessions made to a third party. Only confessions made in police custody are not admissible owing to the possible use of coercion, whereas the statements made to an undercover journalist can stand legal scrutiny if made voluntarily and not under any threat or inducement.

In cases like Piara Singh v. State of Punjab[7], extra judicial confessions have shown to be of great evidentiary value and it may not always require corroboration. But on the other hand there have been cases where Supreme Court itself has held that such evidences should stand the test of exact reproduction of words, the reason and motive for confession and the person whom the confidence is reposed[8]. Like in case of Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab[9], confession to a witness for the purpose of seeking his help to save the accused was not accepted as evidence. This also rules out the evidences by way of confessions from sting operation where the accused is under deception.

Referring to all the above cases we may come to a conclusion that confessions through sting operations are admissible but like extra judicial confessions, they are weak piece of evidence and therefore it should be handled with great care. On the other hand the fact that in sting operations, most confessions are recorded and therefore there are less chances of improbability, confessions through sting operations at times hold a stronger place that other extra judicial confessions and also sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence act shall apply to judge the circumstances under which such confessions are not voluntary.

CONCLUSION

In modern parlance when law enforcement agencies are falling short in checking each and every illegal activity, it is very essential to encourage such sting operations which not just catch the criminals and collect evidences against them but also create a deterrent for people willing to involve in such activities. Also in criminal law we have observed that a great importance is given to the guilty intention or mens rea and therefore the courts must relax the rules of evidence for admissibility. Factum of entrapment and luring the accused into committing an offence should now be given less credit as compared to admissibility of evidences and more emphasis should be laid on the fact that offence has been committed which would have had been committed otherwise also if similar inducement was done not by the sting operation person but by any other person i.e. a public servant accepting bribe on an offer by the journalist conducting a sting operation, would have also accepted it if it was offered by any other person.

---

[1] AIR 1987 S.C. 1748 : 1987 Cr. LJ. 1999 : (1987) 3 SCC 367

[2] I.L.R. (1910) 37 Cal. 467.

[3] (1955) 1 All E.R. 236 at 239 P.C. : (1955) 2 W.L.R. 223

[4] (1979) 2 All E.R. 1222, 1230-1231

[5] (1992) 4 All E.R. 559

[6] W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1125 and 1126/2007

[7] (1977) 4 S.C.C. at p. 459

[8] Rahim Beg v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 343

[9] A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1705

--

Pranav Srivastava, IIIrd Year, Amity Law School

Haider Ajaz