Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The next question is about utility and evidentiary value of the tape-recorded information, is about utility and evidentiary value. In this respect following points require consideration:

a) Whether such evidence is primary or secondary? 
      b)     Whether such evidence is direct or hearsay?

      c)     Whether such evidence is corroborative or substantive?
The point whether such evidence is primary and direct was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Sri Rama Reddy vs. V.V. Giri, AIR 1971 SC 1162. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that like any document the tape record itself was primary and direct evidence admissible of what has been said and picked up by the receiver. This view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordained that when a court permits a tape recording to be played over it is acting on real evidence if it treats the intonation of the words to be relevant and genuine. Referring to the proposition of law as laid down in Rama Reddy's case (Supra), a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari (supra) propounded that the use of tape recorded conversation was not confined to purpose of corroboration and contradiction only, but when duly proved by satisfactory evidence of what was found recorded and of absence of tampering, it could, subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act, be used as substantive evidence. Giving an example, the Court pointed out that when it was disputed or in issue whether a person's speech on a particular occasion, contained a particular statement there could be no more direct or better evidence of it than its tape record, assuming its authenticity to be duly established.