Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)

Dial Singh Narian Singh vs Rajpal Jagan And Ors. on 4 February, 1969

147. It is contended that the conversation between the accused and the Complainant which is tape-recorded, is a contemporaneous evidence and is relevant under Section 8 Evidence Act. Further like a photograph of a relevant incident, a contemporaneous tape recording of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. Relying on Dial Singh Narain Singh vs. Rajpal, AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 350 it is contended that for use of an earlier tape-recorded statement, the identification of the taped voice is crucial and indeed such proper identification of the voices is the sine qua non for the use of the said tape- recorded evidence. Where the voice is denied by the alleged maker thereof, a comparison of the same becomes inevitable and the proper identification of voices must be proved by a competent witness.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Rakesh Bisht vs Central Bureau Of Investigation [Along ... on 3 January, 2007

10. As the tape-recorded conversation is admissible under the law of evidence, the question before this Court is whether the Court can compel a person to give his/her voice samples for identification. Reliance on Rakesh Crl. Rev.P. 577/2009 Page 5 of 10 Bisht (Supra) by the learned APP for State is misconceived, as in that case the application for taking voice samples for identification was allowed by the learned Trial Judge at the stage of investigation which is not the case in the present petition. The Petitioner's application was dismissed after recording of Prosecution evidence.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 39 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991

In Mohan Lal v. Union of India this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the word such as, "any Court" "at any stage", or "any enquiry or trial or other proceedings" "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the Section has expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 100 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1