Leave a comment

WHETHER TAPE RECORDED CONVERSATION IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE ?

Sources- http://www.lawkam.org/evidence/whether-tape-recorded-conversation-is-admissible-in-evidence/5688/

Contents

6 Principles on Tape Recorded Conversation

The highest Court of the land had occasion to consider the question whether the tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence in the decision reported in Ram Singh v. Palmal Ram Singh, wherein the following principles had been laid down :

# 6 Principles on Tape Recorded Conversation

1. The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice.

In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admis-sibility of such statement is to identify the voice of the speaker.

Where the voice has been denied by the maker, it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.

2. The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial.

3. Every possibility of tampering with or eraser of a part of the tape recorded statement must be ruled out; otherwise, it may render the said statement out of context and therefore inadmissible.

4. The statement must be relevant according to the rules of the Evidence Act.

5. The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.

6. The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.

{The above case is also referred in K.S. Mohan vs Sandhya Mohan, AIR 1993 Mad. 59 in which the Madras Court held that the only objection of Mr. R. Alagar, learned senior counsel for the respondent is, that some of the admissions made by the petitioner have not been recorded in the tape.

In other words, there is no dispute about the accuracy of the statements as recorded in the tape.

The respondent does not allege in her evidence or no suggestion has been made to the petitioner in the course of cross-examination that the tape recorded statement has been tampered with. The statements recorded in the tape are relevant statement as envisaged by the provisions of the Evidence Act.

Pursuant to the direction of the Court, the tape containing the conversation between the petitioner and the respondent was sealed and kept in the safe custody of the Court Officer.

The voice of both the petitioner and the respondent is clearly audible.

As a matter of fact, the Court played the tape in open Court in the presence of both parties and their respective counsel and satisfied that the tape contains the conversation between the petitioner and the respondent.}

Posted from
Shoaib Rahman
LL.M. Advocate

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: