Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) There is contradiction in the testimony of Sh. Amrender Sahoo (PW-2) and Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma (PW-12). Whereas, Sh. Amrender Sahoo (PW-2) deposed that Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma (PW-12) had identified the voice of the accused at the time of preparation of voice identification cum transcription memo dated 16.01.2018 (Ex. PW2/B) (D-19), Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma (PW-12) deposed before the Court that he was not able to recognize the voice of the accused in the recordings. Additionally, Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma (PW-12) when examined on the authenticity of Ex. PW9/F (Q-3) denied that it contained the voice of the accused and during cross-examination stated that he had signed the voice identification cum transcription memo dated 16.01.2018 (Ex. PW2/B) (D-19) without reading the same. He also denied that transcript (Ex. PW2/A) (D-19A) was prepared in his presence. He alleged that the transcript had been prepared by the CBI officials in advance and he had merely tallied the same with the voice recording played in his presence. He maintained that he had told the Investigating Officer that it did not contain the voice of the accused. Inspector Sudeep Punia (PW-19) has also admitted during his deposition that he had not taken or investigated the hash value in respect of recorded conversation in verification proceedings Ex. PW9/A (Q-1), trap proceedings Ex. PW9/F (Q-3) and Ex. PW9/L (S-1) and that the exhibits were sent to CFSL without any road certificate.

(ii) Speech of a person can be affected due to his physiological and psychological condition and production of voice is a complex phenomenon.

The witness also deposed that examination of voice by hearing has lot of subjectivity involved in it. He also deposed that the editing or substitution in digital voice recordings is possible through softwares and by mimicry, similar voice could be generated. PW-9 also deposed that he understood the meaning and importance of hash value and no hash value was provided by CBI in this case.

"... I had not checked the date and time of creation and the date and time of modification of various files in articles Q-1, Q-3 and S-1 or the copies thereof. I had not taken or investigate the hash value in respect of articles Q-1, Q-3 and S-1. It is wrong to suggest that Q-1, Q-3 and S-1 were manipulated to suit the case of CBI."
"... I have seen document Mark-PW19/A in the court file. Question : I put it to you that no details of the seal impressions are given in the document Mark-PW19/A. What do you have to say? Answer : The exhibits were sealed with the seal of CBI and the same is mentioned in document Mark-PW19/A. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally giving a wrong and evasive reply in this regard.