Audio recordings as evidence

1) Audio recording is admissible evidence. The Original equipment and media has to be preserved as is and submitted as evidence .

2) You can and should mention the same in your WS.

For some details and court's observations you could refer to the classic BMW hit and run case ( Nanda, if I remember the name correctly ) which lead to the downfall of a very senior advocate as well as public Prosecutor, based primarily on electronic evidence and recordings.

DISCLAIMER : General information and advice provided is without any warranties as to suitability for any use, correctness and application to any specific case. Please always take proper legal counsel . However, if it helped anyone even a little a " thanks" via the " Thank Contributor " button would be appreciated and would encourage me to keep on making efforts :-) . I am also always open to corrections and further learnings from more experienced Seniors here.

the recordings are accepted int he court as evidence and court if found any discrepancy in the evidence will send for the examination of them and the evidence should not be altered nor change to any other form 

The Apex Court after examining the entire issue in the light of various pronouncements laid down the following principles:
a) The contemporaneous dialogue, which was tape recorded, formed part of res-gestae and is relevant and admissible under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

b) The contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act.

c) Such a statement was not in fact a statement made to police during investigation and, therefore, cannot be held to be inadmissible under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

d) Such a recorded conversation though procured without the knowledge of the accused but the same is not elicited by duress, coercion or compulsion nor extracted in an oppressive manner or by force or against the wishes of the accused. Therefore the protection of the article 20(3) was not available.

e) One of the features of magnetic tape recording is the ability to erase and re-use the recording medium. Therefore, the evidence must be received with caution. The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record has not been tampered with.

Conditions Of Admissibility:
The tape recorded conversation can be erased with ease by subsequent recording and insertion could be superimposed. However, this factor would have a bearing on the weight to be attached to the evidence and not on its admissibility. Ultimately, if in a particular case, there is a well grounded suspicion not even say proof, that the tape recording has been tampered with that would be a good ground for the court to discount wholly its evidentiary value as in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72. in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3, following conditions were pointed out by the Apex Court for admissibility of tape recorded conversation:
a) the voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. Where the maker has denied the voice it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
b) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.
c) Every possibility of tempering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
d) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
e) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.
f) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.

Identification Of Voice:
As regards the identification of the taped voice, proper identification of such voice is a sine qua non for the use of such tape recording, therefore, the time and place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voices must be properly identified. 

Transcripttt:
The importance of having a transcripttt of the tape-recorded conversation cannot be under estimated because the same ensures that the recording was not tampered subsequently. In the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehta, AIR 1975 SC 1788, the Apex Court considered the value and use of such transcripttts and expressed the view that transcripttt could be used to show what the transcriber has found recorded there at the time of transcriptttion and the evidence of the makers of the transcripttts is certainly corroborative because it goes to confirm what the tape record contained. The Apex Court also made it clear that such transcripttts can be used by a witness to refresh his memory under section 159 of the Evidence Act and their contents can be brought on record by direct oral evidence in the manner prescribed by section 160 of Evidence Act.