regarding the voice samples but also on the testimony of
5
colleagues of Ashok Raj Arora who are conversant with his
voice.
Regarding section ... where the spectrograph test was
conducted is also doubtful. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted
that no one had identified the voice of the revisionist
voice samples. CFSL confirmed
the similarity of questioned voice and specimen voice samples of appellant
no. 1 and complainant (PW-3) with the voice ... formants and other general visual features in voice grams on the
basis of voice spectrographic examination vide Ex. PW-1/B.
7. Thereafter, the competent
voice of the revisionist/Petitioner is totally different from the actual caller
and the authenticity of the agency from where the spectrograph test was
conducted
Smitha Gireesh vs Uoi & Ors. on 2 June, 2016
Author: G.S.Sistani
Bench
Cbi vs . 1) Narender Kumar Mehta on 29 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH
Cc No. 147/15, Cbi vs . M. K. Mishra Page No. 1 Of 121 on
Cc No. 137/14, Cbi vs . Anil Yadav Page No. 1 Of 88 on 29
State vs . Sandeep Tyagi & Anr. on 29 March, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF
Cbi vs . Narender Singh on 5 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR
Cbi vs . Dev Raj on 31 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR
