Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

58. Further, counsel has also relied the judgment reported in (1982) 2 SCC 258 - Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Dr.Surinder Kaur. In the said judgment it is held that tape recorded conversation can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and it Spl.C.C. No.13/2016 cannot be relied upon. In the case on hand, the sample voice of A.1 and A.2 were collected and compared by an expert (P.W.19) and he has given positive opinion as per Ex.P.58. Hence, there is corroboration. In the case on hand MO.3-CD contained the conversation took place in between A.1 and A.2 during trap. MO.11(b) contains conversation of C.W.1 and A.1 prior to trap and conversation recorded of C.W.1 and A.2 during complaint verification. MO.9, CD contained sample voice of A.1 and Ex.P.61 is its transcription. MO.10, CD contained sample voice of A.2 and Ex.P.62 is its transcription. The voice recorded in all these devices were compared by expert (P.W.19) and had given an opinion. Hence, there was corroboration in the voice recorded. I feel for comparison of voice of C.W.1, A.1 and A.2 & MO.11(b) (HTCL mobile), MO.3-CD, MO.9 and 10-CD's could be used but for transcription, certificate u/s.65B of Evidence Act is necessary.

78. It is the further contention of learned Public prosecutor that the voice of A.1 and A.2 was sent for scientific test and P.W.19 had given a report to that effect. According to P.W.19 he was working as Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi during the relevant period when the sample was sent for test. Further, on 17.12.2015 the laboratory of the office had received forwarding letter dt.15.12.2015 from C.B.I./ACB/ Bengaluru for voice examination along with 4 sealed covers, certificate of authority, specimen seal impressions, photocopy of transcriptions and photo copy of related documents. Further, he had received MO.11(b) mobile handset contained the conversation of complainant and A.1. Further, he had received the CD contained the questioned audio recording vide MO.3. Further, he found one CD contained specimen voice of A.1 and specimen voice of A.2 vide MO.9 and 10 respectively. He had subjected the Spl.C.C. No.13/2016 questioned voice and specimen voice recordings to auditory and spectrographic examination. On examination, he found the questioned voice tallied with the sample voice. He got marked the specimen voice of A.1 & A.2 contained in different C.Ds as S-1 and S-2 respectively. He had prepared a report vide Ex.P.58 dt.28.4.2017. On perusal of Ex.P.58 it appears that he had adopted several tests and found that the questioned voice and the sample voice tallied with one another. Ex.P.28 is the transcription of the contents of MO.11(b) and Ex.P.29 is the transcription of MO.3 made in the presence of P.W.18 (I.O) and Ex.P.18 is the certificate u/s.65B of Evidence Act with regard to Ex.P29. Ex.P.28 is not certified u/s.65B of the Act. But, Ex.P.58 report supports to prove Ex.P.29 transcription. Further according to P.W.19 the sample voice of A.1 & A.2 stored in MO.9 and 10 were tallied with the questioned voice recorded in MO.3-CD at the time of trap ie.conversation of A.1 and A.2. Further, there was similarity. Hence, evidence of P.W.19 and the report in Ex.P.58 scientific report supports the case of the prosecution.