LAW OF EVIDENCE

CASE ANALYSIS: R M Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra

B.A.LLB(Hons.)
2024-2025
SEMESTER V
DIVISION A

SREEYA SENGUPTA
22BAL200

1
 R M Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 SCC (1) 471

CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER

Brief Facts 3

Issues raised 3

Contentions of the Appellant 3-4

Findings of the Court 4

Analysis 4-5

2
BRIEF FACTS

In order to receive treatment for acute appendicitis, Jagdish Prasad Ramnarayan Khandelwal
was brought to Dr. Adatia's nursing home. Dr. Adatia stated that difficulties resulted from the
patient's development of paralytic ileus after surgery. As a result, Dr. Motwani took care of
Jagdish Prasad when he was moved to Bombay Hospital. Three days later, Jagdish Prasad
tragically died. Questions concerning potential carelessness by Dr. Adatia were raised when
the hospital issued a death certificate listing "paralytic ileus and peritonitis" as the causes of
death following surgery.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the appellant permitted the body to be disposed of without
ordering a postmortem. However, once the Police Station asked for an inquest, the Coroner's
Court became involved and notified the participating medical personnel to get their
explanations about how Jagdish Prasad was treated and how he died. The appellant directed
Dr. Adatia to speak with Dr. Motwani in order to get clarification on some technical issues of
the case.

The appellant, who was the Mumbai Coroner at the time, reportedly asked Dr. Adatia for a
bribe of Rs. 20,000 throughout this procedure, claiming that the money would affect the
investigation's conclusion. In response to this demand, Dr. Adatia was given a reduced request
of Rs. 10,000, which he also turned down. Dr. Motwani complained to the Anti-Corruption
Bureau (ACB) on October 5th as a result of the demands' continued persistence. In response to
this complaint, the ACB set up the tapping of Dr. Motwani's phone, as indicated by Mr. Mugwe
and Assistant Commissioner of Police Sawant. Dr. Motwani was instructed to contact the
appellant to discuss the bribe demand while being closely monitored.

Legal action was taken as a result of the appellant's acts, which were interpreted as an attempt
to coerce money out of a good doctor by involving him in a lawsuit. The High Court of Bombay
ultimately upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 161 and 385 of the Indian Penal
Code, imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 and, if absence of the payment of fine, an additional six
months of simple imprisonment.

The present case arose out of an Appeal against conviction of the Appellant.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether tape-recorded conversation is admissible as evidence before the Court of law.

3
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

On appeal, the appellant presented a number of grounds. He first argued that it was improper
for the Trial Court and High Court to allow the recorded recording of his phone call with Dr.
Motwani, a case witness. He maintained that this evidence was inadmissible because it had
been obtained illegally, in violation of Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Acti.

Second, the appellant contended that the recorded exchange between himself and Dr. Motwani
occurred as a result of the Director of the Anti-Corruption Branch's directives throughout the
inquiry. As a result, he asserted that Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedureii made the
evidence inadmissible.

Third, he insisted that he made no effort to seek out or get any kind of unlawful satisfaction.

Lastly, the appellant asked the court to lower his six-month sentence for imprisonment because
he had already paid the Rs. 10,000 fee. He also used his declining health—he had experienced
many heart attacks—as justification for a lighter sentence.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

In response to these points, the court addressed the following:

1. As long as the following requirements are satisfied, taped conversations can be

admitted: they must be pertinent to the topics at hand, the voices must be properly
identified, and there must be no possibility of tampering to demonstrate their
correctness. The exchange on tape was relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence
Actiii and admissible under Section 7 of the same Activ, according to these requirements.
2. The court determined that in this particular case, Section 162 of the CrPC, which limits
specific kinds of comments made to police during investigations, was not applicable.
Since neither side gave a statement to the police, the taped discussion was between the
appellant and Dr. Motwani directly, evading Section 162's restrictions.
3. The phone interaction showed a blatant attempt to seek a bribe, notwithstanding the
appellant's assertions to the contrary. In order to prevent public exposure and the burden
associated with the inquest, the appellant first requested Rs. 20,000 from Dr. Adatia,

4
 according to Dr. Motwani's testimony. Following discussions, the appellant lowered
the claim to Rs. 10,000 before increasing it once more to Rs. 15,000 in the end. These
exchanges, supported by further information the court had confirmed, validated the
offence.
4. In view of the fine paid, the appellant's plea to have his jail time waived was turned
down. Depending on the length and kind of sentence in each case, there are instances
when a reduced sentence may be allowed based on time previously spent. In this case,
the appellant had not completed any of his jail time. Additionally, mercy in punishment
was considered against the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's public stance
at the time.

ANALYSIS

The evidence was rightly admitted in the RM Malkani case. The court in the RM Malkani case
stated that the method of obtaining the evidence was not significant if it was acceptable. The
case calls into question the ethical duties of public office holders, the validity of evidence, and
the proper ratio of punitive to restorative justice, particularly in situations involving corruption.

Finally, contrary to the appellant's submission, the Court allowed the taped conversation to be
admitted into evidence. It added that while conversations may be secretly recorded, they can
only be admitted as evidence if they, among other criteria, relate directly to the proceedings,
unambiguously identify the persons involved and show to be unaltered. While applying these
rules, the court held that the tape is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and
admissible under Section 7. The Appellant's contention of violation of provisions of Section
25 of Indian Telegraph Act in the evidence, was dismissed finding that it was an improper
attempt at exclusion of harmful content. This crucial evidence that would prove the appellant's
mens rea was preserved and maintained by the Court during careful examination and
procedural safegaurds.

The trial court relied on Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtrav to base the
judgment. The Court maintained that recorded evidence could be admitted if it was
satisfactorily preserved and proven authentic, and in the case at bar, this was a tape recording
about a bribe offer brought as corroboration. Again, the Court in Kuruma v. Rvi was of the view
that since it did not make any difference how such evidence was obtained, the aspect that no
5
matter how such evidence was obtained, if relevant to the case it had to be included, brought
to the forefront of its opinion.

The Court also relied on S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjabvii, which established that tape
recordings are admissible if they are genuine and unmodified and accepted taped conversations
as evidence against a public worker suspected of misbehaviour. These precedents in R.M.
Malkani reaffirmed that evidence might be allowed even if it was gathered in an unusual way
as long as it is genuine, pertinent, and free from coercion or manipulation.

The court dismissed the argument of the appellant that the conversation initiated by the
director of the Anti-Corruption Branch with Dr. Motwani should not have been allowed under
Section 162 CrPC. Section 162 prohibits statements made to police officers during
investigation from being used as substantive evidence. The court, however, rejected this
argument by pointing out that Section 162 is limited in scope and the material was brought as
ancillary evidence for a broader inquiry rather than a regular police investigation. In this
decision, the court thus consolidated the criteria that decide the admissibility of evidence and
set a precedent in cases that required recorded evidence, especially in the context of anti-
corruption investigations.

i
Indian Telegraph Act. § 25 (1885).
ii
Code of criminal procedure C.R.P.C. § 162 (1973).
iii
Indian evidence act § 8 (1872).
iv
Indian evidence act § 7 (1872).
v
Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 147
vi
Kuruma v. R [1955] AC 197 PC.
vii
S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72