Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The proceedings between the parties are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal in nature. Petitioners cannot be termed as accused persons. As per Section 28(2) of domestic violence act, Magistrate has power to follow the procedure for disposal of application under Section 12 of PWDVA Act. There is no provisions to compel the party to the proceedings under domestic violence act to give voice sample. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India can not be made applicable.

12. Parties adduced oral evidence. Petitioner adduced evidence of witness no.3/Nilesh Ralebhat. His deposition was recorded on two occasions. Both depositions are placed on record. He is digital forensic examiner who issued Digital Forensic Report which is at Exhibit-96. It can be treated to be report of hash value of the compact disc having following remark:

21. Reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of Gujarat High Court of Learned Single Judge in the matter of Jil w/o.Priyanka Choksi (supra) can not be said to be misplaced. It has a persuasive value because proceedings in that case were also under domestic violence act. The voice sample of members of the family were solicited to be referred for the verification by wife which was 11 Cri.WP-1782-2024.doc declined by the trial magistrate. Against that appeal was preferred which was also dismissed and thus the matter was before the High Court. It was observed that wife who had approached High Court had identified voice of her husband and other members. A report of hash value, certificate under section 65(B) of Evidence Act and transcript of conversation were on record. Following paragraphs are relevant :

"14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.- A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)."

19. In the family matters, all such documents would become admissible irrespective that those documents become relevant or not or could not be proved in accordance to the Indian Evidence Act. Here in this case, the petitioner had tried to assist the Court by making a prayer by moving application Exh.46 to get further evidence for the CD which she had produced on record. The report of the FSL authority would have been for the assistance of the Court. The CD itself becomes an admissible evidence in view of the decision in the case of R.M. Malkani (supra) and Ziyauddin Burhannuddin Bukhari (supra), more so being a matrimonial matter, the parties need not prove the documents or the statement or any other report in accordance to the Indian Evidence Act, without even falling for the relevancy or the admissibility of all those documents, which become part of the trial, it gets admitted as evidence. Here in the present case, when the wife has already produced the CD and transcript of 13 Cri.WP-1782-2024.doc the CD on record, identifying the voice of the husband and other family members, she need not prove more than that on record. However, to assist the Court and to prove the reliability of the CD, she has placed on record the hash value and even the certificate under Section 65B.

. The identification of the voice would not be question, since it is the wife who is identifying the voice of husband and in-laws with whom she had stayed together during the matrimonial life. Though recording would be without the knowledge of husband and family members but the conversation between the persons recorded and placed on record by way of CD is relevant to the matter in issue of domestic violence. The wife by producing the hash value and Section 65B certificate as per the Indian Evidence Act has prima facie proved that there is no erasing or tampering in the recorded conversation. Now the issue which relates is whether the Magistrate has the power to direct the person to give voice samples. It becomes relevant to note that the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate are under DV Act and the proceedings are dealt with as per the criminal procedure Code. As per the provision of law, the respondent cannot be considered as an 'Accused' till there is breach of protection order. Here the prayer was not for a direction to any police to collect voice sample of any accused, but an order to both the parties, for the giving their voice sample."