Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also invited my attention to the discrepancies in the transcript and the recorded conversions between the appellant, complainant - Rizwankhan and PW-8 Ranjitsingh vis-a-vis the audio clip, which was heard by me in the Court, in the presence of respective Counsel. According to Mr. Gaud, even though the voices have not been clearly identifiable, yet, there is material discrepancy wherein it can be heard that the appellant alleged to have said the word in Hindi "nks uk"... The transcript indicates " ns" i.e. something else, which is in Marathi. Learned Counsel would argue that even there is a contradiction as regards the demand of exact amount, apart from the fact that the sanction itself is defective, in the sense, merely because it was admitted by the defence during cross, would not ipso facto mean that sanction is valid, particularly when the prosecution did not examine the 8 of 33 484-2018-Apeal-J.doc Sanctioning Authority, which was not a competent authority to accord the sanction. Mr. Gaud would also argue as regards hash value of the voice of the complainant - Rizwankhan which was recorded on electronic devices.

32. PW-3 Sagar Pednekar admits that if there is addition or subtraction in the electronic record, the hash value gets changed. It is true that if no hash value is drawn, there is possibility of tampering of electronic record. He further admits that in the present case, no hash value has been drawn which results in drawing an inference that the voice recording on the same SD card by formatting the first recording, itself raises a doubt about the authenticity of the voices.

33. PW-5 Reshma Ahire is the voice analyzer and had conducted the spectrographic test admits that she has not mentioned anything about the common factor and disputed factor in her report. She also admits that she had not mentioned in the report the test she had carried out to conclude that the voice sample was similar. She further admits that while making the analysis she did not find that there were some gaps/distortion in both admitted and disputed version. At some places, the sound was not audible. She also admits that these defects could be occurred due to non-working of the recording unit.