Doctine of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: A Comparative Study with Us Legal System

The doctrine of "Fruits of a Poisonous Tree" is an extension of the exclusionary rule of evidence. The doctrine implies that any evidence that is obtained from an illegal arrest, seizure or search during investigation shall not be admissible in court during trial. During the course of an enquiry the investigation agency would normally go to greatlengths to collect all possible evidence in order to establish the truth concerning the case athand. Sometimes, in order to collect evidence, the police and other investigators would have toattempt various means to collect evidentiary material. However, not all means to collectevidence can be justified in a court of law. For instance, if a police officer illegally breaks intoa property belonging to the suspect and stumbles upon a crucial piece of evidence, it wouldmean not just that the officer has committed the crime of housebreaking or trespass but it wouldalso imply that the evidence he had discovered during such trespass will be deemedinadmissible in the court of law, going by the doctrine of ‘fruits of a poisonous tree’. As per Sec. 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence (confession) obtained from the accused or any other person on the basis of threat, promise and inducement is not admissible in court. However,by virtue of Sec. 28 of the IE Act, it can be safely use as evidence if the threat promise or inducement is removed before obtaining the evidence. This paperlooks at the application of this doctrine of evidence in India and U S legal system and other parts of the world.