EVIDENCE TAMPERING

What is Evidence Tampering?

Tampering with evidence is a criminal offence that entails any action taken to destroy, alter, hide, or fabricate evidence. This crime can significantly undermine the integrity of judicial processes. The scope of what constitutes evidence is broad, and includes physical objects, documents, electronic records, and any other items that can be used to support an investigation or legal case, whether civil or criminal.

Evidence tampering entails destroying, fabricating, or suppressing evidence to influence a case, and is a form of falsification or deception in official matters, similar to impersonating a notary or a licensed professional. This may lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals.

Official Definition of Evidence Tampering

Evidence Tampering as defined in Legislation

Section 238 of the The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Earlier Section 201 of IPC) states that anyone who, knowing a crime has been committed, intentionally destroys evidence or provides false information to shield the offender, faces punishment based on the severity of the crime sought to be screened. If the crime is punishable by death, the person can be imprisoned for up to seven years and fined. If the crime is punishable by life imprisonment or up to ten years, the person may be imprisoned for up to three years and fined.

Evidence tampering as defined in Case Laws

In State of Karnataka v. Madesha and Ors., an appeal challenged the Karnataka High Court's acquittal of respondents, questioning the applicability of Section 201 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court ruled that Section 201 IPC only applies if an offence is proven and the accused attempted to screen offenders by destroying or tampering with evidence.

In V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala (2001), it was established that Section 201 IPC requires: (1) an offence to have been committed, (2) the accused to have knowledge or reason to believe this, (3) the accused to have caused the disappearance of evidence or given false information, and (4) the intent to screen the offender from punishment. In this case, there was no evidence that the accused knew of an offense. Thus, Section 201 IPC could not be applied due to a lack of credible evidence.

International Experiences

United States of America

The spoliation of evidence, which involves the loss, destruction, or alteration of evidence, is addressed differently across various jurisdictions. In the United States, the legal responses to spoliation have evolved significantly since the mid-1980s, reflecting a broader anti-spoliation trend aimed at preserving the integrity of the judicial process.

Criminal Sanctions

Several states have implemented criminal sanctions to deter and punish the spoliation of evidence. For example, in Texas, Section 37.09(a)(1) of the Penal Code criminalizes the alteration, destruction, or concealment of records, documents, or other evidence with the intent to impair its availability in an investigation or official proceeding. Violations of this statute can result in charges ranging from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on the severity and intent behind the spoliation. Similarly, Iowa's Code Section 719.3 classifies the destruction of evidence to obstruct justice as an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment and fines. Despite the existence of such statutes, criminal prosecutions for spoliation in civil litigation remain rare, largely due to the reluctance of prosecutors to pursue these cases and the relatively minor penalties involved compared to potential civil liabilities.

Civil Discovery Sanctions

Civil discovery sanctions are a primary tool for addressing spoliation in the U.S. legal system. Courts have broad discretion to impose a range of sanctions on parties that destroy evidence, including dismissal of lawsuits, entry of default judgments, and exclusion of key evidence. These sanctions serve both punitive and deterrent purposes, ensuring that parties adhere to discovery obligations. The inherent power of the courts to impose these sanctions is well established, allowing judges to act even in the absence of specific discovery orders if spoliation undermines the judicial process. This inherent authority underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining fair and just legal proceedings.

Independent Tort Actions

Some states, including California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, and Alaska, recognize independent tort actions for the spoliation of evidence. These tort actions provide a direct legal remedy for parties harmed by the intentional or negligent destruction of evidence. For instance, in California, courts have acknowledged both intentional and negligent spoliation as actionable torts, allowing victims to seek compensation for damages resulting from the loss of critical evidence. This approach reflects a growing recognition of the significant impact spoliation can have on the ability to litigate claims effectively and fairly.

Common Law Remedies

Across various jurisdictions, common law remedies for spoliation often include evidentiary inferences and presumptions against the spoliator. The principle of "omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem" (all things are presumed against a wrongdoer) allows courts to infer that the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its loss. This evidentiary presumption serves as a powerful deterrent, encouraging parties to preserve relevant evidence and discouraging the intentional destruction of potentially harmful materials.

Challenges

Ensuring the authenticity and reliability of evidence is crucial for fair and accurate verdicts. Tampered evidence distorts facts and misleads the judiciary, leading to erroneous judgments. Such actions result in miscarriages of justice, where innocent people are wrongfully convicted and guilty individuals evade punishment, undermining public confidence in the legal system. High-profile cases especially highlight the profound societal impact of evidence tampering. This misconduct is often classified as a felony across jurisdictions, carrying substantial fines, imprisonment, and additional charges, to underscore the importance of maintaining evidence integrity. Even minor actions, like deleting messages, can obstruct investigations; while serious tampering such as planting DNA can lead to severe criminal charges.

Way Ahead

Technological solutions such as digital forensics tools and blockchain technology are critical for ensuring evidence integrity. Digital forensics tools and blockchain technology employ advanced algorithms to analyse file metadata, identify inconsistencies, and maintain a tamper-evident audit trail while preventing any alterations or manipulations without detection. Procedural reforms are also essential, including standardised evidence-handling protocols to ensure consistency in collection, storage, labeling, and transportation.

Comprehensive training programs for law enforcement, forensic experts and legal professionals are necessary to equip them with essential skills in digital forensics methodologies and tamper-evident techniques. Public awareness initiatives can educate citizens on the importance of evidence integrity and foster civic engagement in criminal investigations. Future strategies should include advancements in AI and machine learning to enhance evidence analysis and detect tampering indicators, international collaboration to standardize evidence-handling protocols across jurisdictions, and regular reviews of protocols to adapt to evolving threats and implement iterative improvements.