Mere Transcripts Not Proof Of Voice In Tape-Records: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that mere transcript of a tape record is not proof that the voice so recorded is of the accused.The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar referred to the Apex Court decision in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors. where it was held that the tape records of speeches fall under the category of “Documents” under the Indian...
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that mere transcript of a tape record is not proof that the voice so recorded is of the accused.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar referred to the Apex Court decision in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors. where it was held that the tape records of speeches fall under the category of “Documents” under the Indian Evidence Act, standing on no different footing than photographs, which could be admissible in evidence only on satisfying the following conditions:
“(a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it.
(b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record.
(c) The subject-matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy round in the Evidence Act.”
In the case at hand, voice sample of accused was not produced. Court also noted that none of the prosecution witnesses who were directly involved in recording the conversation stated that one of the voice in the conversation was of the accused.
The Court was dealing with the criminal appeal preferred by a bank manager against his conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant for sanctioning his loan.
Section 7 of the Act lays down the offence of acceptance of any illegal gratification by a public servant other than the lawful remuneration.
The complaint was received by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (“ACB”) from the complainant who alleged that the appellant sought money from him for sanctioning his loan. ACB arranged a trap wherein allegedly a conversation was recorded between the complainant and the appellant based on which an FIR was filed that resulted in the appellant's conviction.
The Court referred to the Apex Court cases of A. Subair v State of Kerala and Soundarajan v State Rep. By the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti Corruption Dindigul wherein it was held that proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was a vital ingredient for Section 7 under the Act.
The Court further highlighted that the prosecution mainly relied on recording of conversation to argue this ingredient but it failed to establish that one of the voices recorded was of the appellant.
“Evidently, the voice of the appellant has not been recognized by any of the prosecution witnesses, especially the prosecution witnesses who were involved in getting the voice recorded. Therefore, only on the basis of Ex.P-3, which is transcript of the tape-records, it cannot be accepted as proof of the fact of recording of conversation.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court case of Chandresha v State of Karnataka Lokayukt Police Kalburgi in which it was held that when the work of the complainant was not pending before the accused on the date of the trap, the offence under Section 7 under the Act could not be attracted.
It highlighted that it was an admitted fact of the complainant that on the day of the trap, no formalities were pending with respect to sanctioning of his loan.
In light of this analysis, the conviction order was set aside.
Title: Babu Lal v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 235