Tape-recorded conversation can be admitted as evidence, provided the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue, the voice can be properly identified, and the possibility of erasing parts of the tape is eliminated. (R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 72)
Thus, tape-recordings can be used as evidence in a Court to corroborate the statements of a person who deposes that he had carried on a conversation with a particular person. A previous statement of a person which has been tape-recorded can also be used to test the veracity of a witness and to impeach his impartiality.
Image Source: upload.wikimedia.org
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Madras High Court has, in R. Venkatesan v. State (1980 Cr. L. J. 41), considered the evidentiary value of a tape-recorded conversation. In that case, the recorded conversation was not audible throughout and was broken at a very crucial place. The accused alleged that the same had been tampered with.
The accuracy of the recording was not proved and the voices were also not properly identified. In the circumstances, the Court concluded that it would not be safe to rely on the tape-recorded conversation as corroborating the evidence of the prosecution witness.
The observations of the Supreme Court (in Yusufali Esmail v. State of Maharashtra, 1968 Madras L. J. 247) in connection with tape- recorded evidence are relevant. In that case, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“If a statement is relevant, an accurate tape-record of the statement is also relevant and admissible. The time and place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voice must be properly identified. One of the features of the magnetic tape-recording is the ability to erase and re-use the recording medium. Because of this facility of erasure and re-use, the evidence must be received with caution. The Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record has not been tampered with.”
As regards admissibility of tape recordings, the Bombay High Court has, in C. R. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 Cri. L. J. 2863), observed as follows:
“The law is quite clear that tape-recorded evidence, if it is to be acceptable, must be sealed at the earliest point of time, and not opened except under orders of the Court.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Electronic Records:
It is clarified, by an amendment inserted by the Information Technology Act, 2000, that electronic records are also included in the definition of the term “document” under S. 3 of the Act. It is also clarified that the expressions “Certifying Authority”, “digital signature”, “Digital Signature Certificate”, “electronic form”, “electronic records”, “information”, “secure electronic record”, “secure digital signature”, and “subscriber” shall have the same meanings as are assigned to them in the Information Technology Act, 2000.