in Gäfgen v. Germany In certain cases continental European countries have similar laws (e.g. in cases of torture), while the doctrine itself is generally not known. In the UK however, fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is not recognized, as illegally obtained evidence is admissible in a court of law. Contrasting doctrine The admissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful means has been a point of contention in courts throughout the world. Examples would include stolen documents or tapped phones. Illegally obtained evidence is used by the courts to ensure that the judgement is factually correct, however the person obtaining the illegal evidence typically faces independent consequences. India English courts have relied on an 1861 verdict, R v Leathem, to admit evidence irrespective of the legality of the source. This is the general stance. Drawing on the English tradition, the doctrine does not have a parallel in India and courts will admit evidence, even if it is illegally obtained (stolen, etc.), especially if it will help prove guilt or innocence. While the quality of the evidence may be suspect, the position that the evidence should not be considered at all is not a position Indian courts take. There are other considerations as to the admissibility of the evidence, such as whether it was extracted under duress or other violation of human rights including privacy in modern times, or "if its prejudicial effect on the jury was likely to outweigh its probative value". However, this article deals only about cognisance in case the source of the evidence itself may be unlawful. The Supreme Court of India, the highest appellate and constitutional court of India, has dealt with the matter multiple times, decisively so in 1971, ruling against the applicability of this doctrine in India. In the 2019 Rafale deal controversy, the Attorney General K. K. Venugopal argued in front of a three-member bench of the court, which included the sitting Chief Justice, that official, classified documents stolen from the government – which happened to be integral to the case in question – should not be taken cognisance of by the court, as they were classified, and the stealth and subsequent leakage to a newspaper was a crime under the Official Secrets Act. K M Joseph, from the bench, noted that "even stolen evidence can be looked into by the Court. It is well settled under Evidence Act", while the Chief Justice, Ranjan