Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) The conversational speeches said to be of the accused with the informant at Ex.P24 and 27 and his sample speech at Ex.P28 are similar.

(b) The conversational speeches said to be of the 18 Spl. C.C.1057/2022 informant at Ex.P24 and 27 and his sample speech at Ex.P29 are similar.

25. Pw.6 also clarified that, the audio recordings were found to be not edited. Interesting is that, the accused is not disputing his conversations with the informant containing in the CDs. at Ex.P24 and 27 so also the opinion. But while noticing the admission of Pw.6 in the cross-examination that "No hash value is identified", the counsel has relied on the authority of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Umesh Vs. State by the Lokayukta police reported as 2023 (2) Kar.L.J. 397 to contend that, the opinion of Pw.6 does not assume the evidentiary value. Therefore according to him, the expert opinion cannot be relied upon. The learned Public Prosecutor counters it with the stand that, when the conversational speeches of the accused with the informant is not in dispute, the opinion of Pw.6 cannot be said to have lost its value only on the ground that hash value is not identified.

26. Here it is made clear that, the opinion of an expert is not an ultimatum or conclusive in nature to decide the issue. To the maximum extent, it can be considered as a piece of corroboration in the given situation that too if necessarily demands as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that, "A hash value being an alphanumeric string that serves to identify an 19 Spl. C.C.1057/2022 individual digital file (a kind of digital finger print) could be considered as important aid". Also guided therein as to how an electronic evidence needs to be appreciated. Therefore I am of the opinion that, the defence contention would gets no support from the law laid down in Umesh's case. Even otherwise to the exclusion of the expert opinion, the other material on record consistently corroborates the evidence of the informant amidst minor discrepancies and exposes the manner in which the demand for the illegal gratification is being made by the accused. In this context, the ratio law in the authorities referred at para-18 of this judgment supports the prosecution stand rather than the accused. In a nutshell, I am to hold that the allegation of demand stands proved with no scope for any suspicion.