Twitter
Advertisement

Tape-recorded proof can be phoney: Supreme Court

Voicing concern at the possibility of misuse of tape-recorded proof, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday the “evidence of voice” was suspect, if not wholly unreliable.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

Voicing concern at the possibility of misuse of tape-recorded proof, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled on Monday the “evidence of voice” was suspect, if not wholly unreliable.

The judgment may work as a guiding force for agencies investigating a variety of cases based on intercepts - the Nira Radia tapes being no exception.

SC said accurate voice identification was much more difficult than visual identification. It was prone to such extensive and sophisticated tampering, doctoring and editing that reality could be completely replaced by fiction, a bench of justices B Sudershan Reddy and SS Nijjar said while acquitting Chhota Rajan gangster Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar.

Paradkar was arrested in 2005 for hatching a conspiracy over phone to kill diamond merchant Bharat Shah. The prosecution’s case was based on interception of calls made by one of his four accomplices. While his aides were acquitted by the Bombay high court, Paradkar was convicted.

Supreme Court has now directed Maharashtra Police to set him free as well and said courts should be extremely cautious in basing a conviction purely on evidence of voice identification.

Taped records of speeches are “documents” under section 3 of Evidence Act. They are no different from photographs, which are admissible as evidence, provided investigating agencies take certain stringent measures.

The voice of a person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of its record or by others who know it, Supreme Court said.

Second, accuracy of what was actually recorded must be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, has to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering.

Third, the subject matter recorded has to be shown to be relevant under Evidence Act.

In an earlier judgment, Supreme Court had specified conditions for admissibility of tape-recorded statements. First, identify the voice of the speaker.

Second, rule out every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape-recorded statement, otherwise it may render the statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.

Third, keep the “recorded cassette carefully sealed and in safe or official custody. Make sure the voice of the speaker is clearly audible, not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances”.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement