Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: spectrography in N. Sri Rama Reddy vs Sh. V. V. Giri In Reference To A Tape on 12 May, 2014Matching Fragments
22. Witness PW10 Sh. Devraj son of Sardar Makhan Singh had deposed that in the year 200304 he was residing at C2, WZ, Anand Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He had a small grocery store at C9, Sharda Puri, Delhi. After closing the said shop he had shifted to Uttam Nagar. He used to sell liquor illegally from his residence. He had informed that he had some cases registered against him under the Punjab Excise Act.
23. Witness PW11 Inspector D. K. Thakur had taken over the investigation of this case from Inspector Mukesh Kumar. As per his testimony he had forwarded Hi 8 Cassettes to CFSL, Chandigarh in order to obtain its expert opinion. He had received a positive report from CFSL, Chandigarh. CFSL had also provided him copies of recordings in Compact Discs for the purpose of investigation. He had identified the letter Ex.PW4/B of CFSL, Chandigarh and also report Ex.PW4/A which was received from CFSL, Chandigarh. As per his testimony with the assistance of Delhi Police officials and complainant Sh. Chetan Prakash he had tried to identify the officials of Delhi Police and that of Excise Department who were seen in those video clippings as well as the locations where the said video clippings had been shot. He had prepared one Video Identification and one CD Identification Memo regarding these proceedings. He had identified the same as Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B. The scene relating to the accused was identified to be in the portion X1 to X1 in Ex.PW11/A (Scene no.7Video Identification memo) and Ex.PW11/B (Scene no.4CD identification memo). He had obtained the specimen voice of the accused persons including Sh. Satish Kumar (accused herein) and prepared the memo Ex.PW2/A. He had sent the specimen voice of Sh. Satish Kumar (accused herein) which was recorded on one side of the cassette and that of Sh. Meghraj (accused in another case) on the other side, to CFSL, New Delhi along with the questioned video cassette for obtaining the spectrography report vide letter Ex.PW3/B. Subsequently, there was a report Ex.PW3/A received from CFSL, New Delhi confirming that the specimen voice of the accused Sh. Satish Kumar matched with the questioned voice contained in the video clipping in question. He had also identified the letter Ex.PW3/B by which the said report was sent to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, which was then marked to him by Sh. S.K. Palsania, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. As per his testimony he had thereafter sought certain clarifications from the Excise Department by letter dated 27.11.2006 Ex.PW8/A. In response thereto the clarifications were received vide letter dated 29.11.2006 supplied by Sh. B.L. Sharma Ex.PW8/B along with annexures Ex.PW8/B1 including that the liquor cannot be sold from residential premises in Delhi.
d) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
e) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.
f) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.
39. The above conditions can be broadly divided in two parts. Conditions (a), (d) and (f) relate to relevancy for unless the voice is identified and is audible or intelligible the tape recorded conversation or voice is meaningless in so far the relevancy is concerned. The other conditions (b) (c) and (e) relate to the integrity of the recording. With the advent of the new technologies the above objective can be achieved by forensic examination. In specific reference to videotapes it can be done by resorting i.e. speaker identification by conducting spectrography analysis and other auditory examinations to determine the voice of the speaker and by examination of videotapes by using VISAR tool, Vectorscope and waveform monitor to determine that a videotape is genuine and not tempered with."
67. He had then subjected the common clue words/sentences selected from the questioned as well as specimen voice and found them to be similar in respect of their number of formants, formants frequency distribution, intonation pattern and other general visual features in the voice grams on the consolidated effects of similarities in the linguistic characters and phonetic features using auditory and voice spectrography analysis he had reached the conclusion that the voice marked Q2 (1) (A) was the probable voice of the person named Satish Kumar whose specimen voice was marked EX. S20(A). He had identified his report Ex. PW3/A in the Court.