Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.13 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Farid Ahmed, PW-3 stated that he was not aware from where accused Farid Ahmed had been brought and except recording of disclosure statement and voice sample, he was not part of the investigation qua accused Farid Ahmed. He admitted that he could not say whether the CDs provided by FSL were checked for blankness before recording of voice samples. He further admitted that no mobile phone was seized from accused Farid Ahmed in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 7.14 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Manawwar Ahmed Mir, PW-3 stated that he did not recollect the exact date when he reached Jammu & Kashmir. He stated that they had travelled in private vehicles along with Inspector Sanjeev Yadav, Inspector P.C. Yadav, HC Dinesh, Ct. Rakesh and Ct. Mohit. He admitted that except disclosure statements and State Vs. Kafait Ullah Khan & Ors. FIR No. 166/2015 PS Crime Branch Pages 30 of 124 intercepted conversations, he could not state the evidence against accused persons. He clarified that Ct. Rakesh heard the intercepted calls and he prepared transcripts thereof. He stated that accused Manawwar was arrested from the compound of PS Thanamandi and one Nokia mobile phone was recovered from him. He admitted that the recovered phone was not a smartphone and no videography of recovery proceedings was conducted. He denied suggestions that accused Manawwar had not been arrested in the manner alleged or that no incriminating material was recovered from him. He further stated that voice sample of accused Manawwar was recorded in his presence at FSL Rohini. He admitted that he had not personally heard intercepted calls of accused Manawwar but had prepared transcript of a few days' conversations. He further denied suggestions that no CD was recovered from the house of accused Kafait Ullah or that the same had been prepared later at the instance of the IO. 7.15 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Sabir, PW-3 admitted that he himself had not heard the intercepted conversations and only typed what Ct. Rakesh dictated to him after hearing the recordings. He admitted that no conversation between accused Sabir and anyone else was directly heard by him. He stated that the copy of the CD was prepared at Manjakot and thereafter the original CD was sealed in a brown envelope with seal of SKY. He admitted that local police accompanied the police party during search proceedings at the house of accused Kafait Ullah. He denied suggestions that a fabricated script was prepared first and thereafter accused persons were made to utter the same while recording voice samples. He admitted that multiple copies of audio cassettes containing State Vs. Kafait Ullah Khan & Ors. FIR No. 166/2015 PS Crime Branch Pages 31 of 124 voice samples were prepared by FSL experts but stated that he did not remember what happened to those copies thereafter. He further denied suggestions that the police team had manipulated or merged the audio recordings after obtaining voice samples from FSL.

8.5 During his cross-examination for accused Mohd. Sabir, the witness stated that he was present in the room when the voice samples were recorded. He stated that after the IO took possession of the cassettes vide seizure memos Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/E, he did not see the said cassettes till they were shown to him in Court. He further stated that he did not remember whether he had signed on the pullandas containing the cassettes.

8.6 In his cross-examination for accused Munawar Ahmad Mir, the witness stated that he did not recollect the exact time when he along with Insp. Sanjeev Kumar and HC Ajay left for FSL, Rohini on 19.01.2016. He stated that he could not comment as to whether the voice samples were recorded pursuant to permission of the Court. He further stated that apart from them and the accused persons, 2-3 FSL Experts were present at the time of recording of voice samples. He deposed that the samples were taken separately by calling each individual into the room. He further stated that he did not remember till what time they remained at FSL, Rohini. He denied the suggestion that the voice samples were not recorded by the FSL Experts or that the same had been fabricated using other voices.

State Vs. Kafait Ullah Khan & Ors. FIR No. 166/2015 PS Crime Branch Pages 36 of 124 8.7 In his cross-examination for accused Farid Ahmad, the witness stated that the cassettes used for recording the voice samples were unwrapped by the IO in his presence. He admitted that the cassettes were not played in his presence prior to recording of voice samples. He further stated that the instruments available at FSL, Rohini were used for recording the samples. He denied the suggestion that the cassettes used for recording the voice samples were not empty or that they already contained previously recorded voices. He voluntarily stated that had there been any previously recorded voice, the FSL Experts would have cautioned them. The witness further stated that he could not tell the sequence in which the voice samples of the accused persons were recorded, though according to him the sample voice of accused Kafait Ullah Khan was recorded first. He further stated that he did not remember whether the FSL Experts had played the cassettes after recording the voices to confirm proper recording. He also stated that he could not tell the duration of the entire process. He further deposed that after sealing the cassettes, the IO retained the same with him. He stated that he could not say whether the IO had brought the pullandas of the cassettes with him while returning, though he admitted that he had returned with the IO. He denied the suggestion that the voice samples had been manipulated or fabricated to suit the prosecution case.

8.8 During his cross-examination for accused Kafait Ullah Khan and Abdul Rashid, the witness stated that the room in which the sample voices were recorded was equipped with FSL recording instruments. He stated that he could not tell the make of the equipment used for recording the voice samples. He further stated that he did not recollect what exactly was State Vs. Kafait Ullah Khan & Ors. FIR No. 166/2015 PS Crime Branch Pages 37 of 124 spoken by the accused persons during recording of the voice samples. He stated that no instrument was handed over to the accused persons during recording. He further deposed that though he did not check whether the machine was on or off, the lights on the machine were blinking. He stated that the machine was not demonstrated before recording of the voice samples and that the FSL Experts had confirmed the recording of the voice samples. He denied the suggestion that the voice samples of the accused persons were not recorded or that the cassettes had been fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely.