Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SC No. 57715/16 State Vs. Smt. Rajesh and another 25 of total pages 43

62.                   He   had   compared   the   specimen   voice   sample   with   the questioned   voice   sample   in   the   Pen   driver.   On   auditory   analysis   and subsequent acoustic analysis using computerized speech lab Ex.Q1 was found similar to Ex. S1, Ex.Q2 was found similar to Ex. S2 and Ex.Q4 was   found   similar   to   Ex.   S4.   He   further   testified   that   quality   of   voice sample of speaker marked Q3, Smt. Rajesh was very poor, hence the speaker   identification   test   could   not   be   carried   out   for   the   same.   He further testified that the mobile marked Ex.1a  was forwarded to computer forensic unit as no relevant data was found on the retrieved data.   He proved the detailed report as Ex. PW31/A.