Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Now, turning towards the electronic evidence, it is to be noted that the said panchanama including the transcript of the dialogues exchanged is stated to have been prepared on the basis of what was heard from the voice recorder. No doubt, it appears that by taking out hash value the said voice recorder was sent to the forensic lab for analysis with the sample of the voice, but no efforts appears to have been taken by the prosecution to play that voice recorder or the CD prepared therefrom during the course of the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5. Mere submission of the certificate will not absolve the prosecution from identifying the voice before the Court. The report of the forensic lab would be in the form of opinion of an expert and the concerned authority may come to a conclusion that the voice, which has been heard in both the devices, are of the same person. But it has to be concluded that, the said voice is of the accused and that can be done apeal-103-2017.odt only before the trial Court. Therefore, taking into consideration all the abovesaid evidence, scanning thereof and the reasons aforesaid, it cannot be said that the offence was proved by the prosecution against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the point is answered in the negative. The appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order :-