Evidence Tampering: Definition, Components and Defences
In this blog, the author discusses the crime of tampering with evidence, detailing its essential components, common actions that constitute tampering, potential defenses, and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which penalize false evidence and offenses against public justice.
Khushi Gera
6/9/20244 min read
INTRODUCTION:
A suspect's fear of being caught by the police and then proceeding to obliterate or harm evidence is a common scene on police drama shows. That suspect may be throwing implicating reports into an open chimney or flushing drugs down. These scenes portray exemplary instances of criminal cases that include altering proof.
Tampering with evidence is a crime that incorporates any activity that obliterates, modifies, covers, or distorts any evidence. The definition of evidence is exceptionally wide. It incorporates any item, report, or record helpful to an investigation or a civil or criminal proceeding, whether or not it is forthcoming or continuous.
COMPONENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF TAMPERING:
The prosecution must lay out all components of the crime to prove a criminal offence. For a conviction, the state must prove every component beyond a reasonable doubt. The essential components of the crime of tampering with evidence include:
Intent: The accused's state of mind is a critical component of the offence. The prosecution should show that the defendant obstructed proof obstinately or deliberately. Unplanned obliteration or straightforward deserting (discarding) may not be sufficient to prove intent.
Knowledge: An individual acts with knowledge when they know that their act will likely cause a specific outcome. With a tampering charge, the accused must believe that there is a high chance that their activities will harm or disguise the evidence.
Evidence: This incorporates each actual article or report that may be produced in any trial, proceeding, or examination. It additionally incorporates computerized pictures and video recordings.
Consciousness of a potential or forthcoming investigation: The accused has the knowledge to understand that a criminal investigation or official proceeding is progressing or going to begin. This aligns up with their intent to hide, modify, or annihilate evidence. It can't be an overall mindfulness that violations might prompt criminal investigation and proceedings.
COMMON DEMONSTRATIONS OF TAMPERING:
Tampering is a wide concept that covers any activity that hides a crime, yet there are cutoff points to what can bring about charges. For instance, the way a suspect disposes of evidence doesn't guarantee that they had the culpable state of mind for tampering with evidence. Policing poses a progression of inquiries:
§ Did they know that it was evidence of a crime?
§ Did they dispose of it to annihilate evidence or forestall its disclosure?
§ Did they have knowledge that the police had a continuous criminal investigation?
§ Did they have any idea that official proceedings were in progress?
Common activities supporting evidence tampering charges might incorporate adjusting, hiding, or obliterating evidence. Moving a thing to stow away or make it inaccessible can likewise qualify as tampering. Now and then, somebody will introduce false evidence to deceive authorities. Here are a few situations:
During a police drug strike, a suspect eats the evidence, gulping the baggie of cocaine they had in their grasp.
A man has a well-established resentment against his neighbours for playing loud music. He throws a baggie of marijuana into the passenger seat of his neighbour's vehicle and afterwards calls the police over for boisterous music. The police provide a warning over the loud music however arrest the neighbor for illegal ownership of drugs.
Frequently, one considers tampering as a conduct by a criminal to conceal their crime. However, a few criminal cases start when an individual plants evidence to cause the arrest of someone else. However, criminal defence attorneys remind the public that anybody could fabricate physical evidence. Policing must continuously be alert for such ways of behaving.
There are some defence that the accused may take in tampering with evidence charge, including:
Absence of intent: The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused intended to carry out the act of tampering with evidence. Along these lines, they might guarantee they knew nothing about any hidden crime. For instance, the owner of a home where a crime happened may claim that they were oblivious to any evidence of a crime when they cleaned the home.
Mistake of fact: A mistake of fact is raised to contend that the respondent erroneously accepted the things obliterated were immaterial to any judicial proceedings. An individual accused of drug trafficking might state they discarded an old phone however guarantee that it was not generally required. They could deny any information that it could have evidence pertinent to a crime.
Duress: In cases with co-defendants, somebody accused of tampering might claim that the vital defendant constrained them to annihilate evidence. They might contend that their activities were not intentional and happened in danger of physical harm.
Invalid Inquiry or Seizure: Frequently, tampering cases result from drug violations. The defence might try to address how the police acquired the evidence in any case. In the event that the defence can disprove reasonable justification for a hunt or seizure, this might prompt suppression of evidence. An unfavorable decision might debilitate the state's case.
CONCLUSION:
Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code,1860 deals with false evidence and offences against public justice.
Under Section 193, any individual who deliberately gives false evidence in any court proceeding or furnishes false evidence with the motive of using it in court proceedings will be penalized with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to seven years and be liable to a fine.
Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 expresses that assuming somebody stows away, obliterates, or changes a document that they are legitimately expected to present as proof in court to prevent its use, they can be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or fined, or both.
REFERENCES:
· https://devgan.in/ipc/chapter_11.php
