Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The witness did not depose as to in which mode of recording or through which mode of recording the voice sample of accused was recorded in the police station, as for recording in a pen drive, a laptop or computer or any other audio recording instrument was required and there cannot be any direct recording on the pen drive. Entire evidence of the prosecution and investigation is silent as to through which mode this recording was done. Also, this witness claimed ignorance whether the ACP concerned, to whom the investigation of case was entrusted, was present in the police station at the time of recording of voice sample of accused by the Inspector on that day.

3.6. PW11 ASI Umesh Kumar also worked as Malkhana Moharrar in PS Jaitpur.

He deposed that on 03.11.2016 he handed over the sealed parcel to Ct. Dharmender (PW10) under RC No. 193/21/16 for depositing the same in the FSL. The witness also deposed that in the month of February 2018 he also handed over two more parcels sealed with the seal of SKS to Ct. Suresh Chand (PW6) to be taken and deposited in FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 27/21/18.

It may be mentioned here that there is an unexplained delay in sending the audio recording / sample voice to the FSL. The questioned audio recording was sent to the FSL on 03.11.2016 whereas the complainant had handed it over to the IO on 20.01.2015, i.e., after a delay of almost two years. Similarly, the sample voice of accused was sent in February 2018 whereas it was collected in May 2015 i.e., after a delay of almost three years.

In the cross examination of this witness by the accused, the witness claimed that prior to the present complaint, no other complaint was received from the complainant in the police station and that the voice sample of the accused was recorded by him during the course of investigation and he did not take permission from senior police officers or the Court for obtaining the sample.

In the entire testimony of this witness, the witness does not even claim that he conducted investigation of this case in the presence of ACP. All that he claims is that on the next day of registration of FIR, file was received by him on the direction of ACP for further investigation and then he collected the memory card and obtained the voice sample. In a case under POC Act, SHO of a police station under Delhi Police is not competent to investigate the matter and the officer competent was the ACP concerned. The witness also did not depose as to what was the mode of recording the voice sample of the accused and through which mode the sample voice was recorded in the pen drive. It is not in dispute that till 07.05.2015 when sample voice of accused was obtained, there was no permission taken by the investigating officer from any Court of law and he collected the voice sample all by himself even not in the presence of IO ACP concerned.

13.2. Also, the voice sample of the accused did not match with the questioned audio recording and the voice sample obtained by the investigating agency was insufficient to be compared with the questioned audio recording.

13.3. It may also be mentioned here that the voice sample of accused, was obtained by the SHO Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma and at that time the IO i.e., ACP concerned was not even present. Though the concerned ACP Nidhin Valson when appeared as PW17 tried to improve upon the case of prosecution by claiming that he was present at the time of recording of voice sample of the accused, but it is belied from the testimony of Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma PW8 as well as PW2 W/SI Sarika and the document prepared at that time which does not contain signature or name of the ACP. A witness's memory may fail, but the documents doesn't lie.